Ana Jenny

In his book Galileo, Darwin, and Hawking: The Interplay of Science, Reason, and Religion, Phil Dowe expresses his belief that science, religion and reason can all coexist and interact harmoniously. He discusses several topics that propose conflict between religion, reason and science and attempts to find a middle ground where interaction between these areas of study can occur. One of the topics Dowe addresses is the struggle between creation and evolution. He argues that belief in the theory of evolution does not necessarily preclude any belief in the teachings of the Bible. He presents an interesting argument which will be analyzed in this paper.

In presenting his argument, Dowe begins with Aristotle's teleological view of science. According to Aristotle everything should be viewed in terms of its purpose which is most often intrinsic. Thomas Aquinas took Aristotle's ideology a step further by proposing that not only does everything have a purpose, but its purpose was bestowed upon it by God. Dowe goes on to point out that even in Newton's mechanical explanations of physics there was room left for the discussion of design. "For Newton the purely mechanical operation of the solar system is so beautifully intricate and ordered that it simply could not have come about by chance. It must, therefore, have been the product of a mathematically minded designer" (108).

Next Dowe introduces William Paley's argument of the watchmaker. Like Newton, Paley believed that so many things in this world were intricate and complex that a designer must be behind it. Dowe goes on to spend the remainder of this chapter discussing Darwin's theory of natural selection and evolution. He also includes Asa Gray's defense of Darwin's theory. According to Gray believing in natural selection does not automatically make an individual, or Darwin in particular, an atheist. He proposed the possibility that natural selection was part of God's design all along. This once again allows for discussion of science and religion.

Dowe's main premise in this chapter is that in each argument against creation there is room left to discuss the idea of intelligent design or theistic evolution. He believes that the reason that creation should not be ruled out is because none of the arguments are strong enough to hold up against creation. According to Dowe, all theories discussed are an inference to the best explanation. For example with Darwin's theory, "the probability of the range of biological evidence (E) given the theory of natural selection (H₁) is greater than the probability of that evidence given in natural selection (H₂)" (119). Since this is the case, creation cannot be fully ruled out and as such discussion and interaction between creation and evolution can occur.

Dowe makes several important points in his argument for interaction between religion and science. One definite strength in his argument is the fact that he traced this topic back in history. This shows that there are individuals throughout history that have discussed and debated this topic thus making it more legitimate. He makes it very clear that each individual he wrote about did not completely dismiss the idea of a designer. Using several different examples he showed that individuals throughout history have been consistent in making connections between science and religion. He also made it clear that Darwin's theory was not a definite answer but rather the most likely and thus creation could not be ruled out completely. If his purpose was to show that religion and science can somehow interact he succeeded.

While Dowe presents a convincing argument there are several key factors to take into consideration when reading his work. First and foremost is the fact that he has a very clear bias. As such he specifically picked examples and individuals who would support his argument. Furthermore the title of this chapter implied that the topic at hand would be creation rather than intelligent design. While he stated that creation cannot be definitively ruled out, he did not provide an argument in support of it. Instead he chose to focus on the idea of a designer rather than the creation stories from the Bible. Overall his was a good argument but it is important have a critical mind when deciding who or what to believe.

In Dowe's discussion of creation and evolution he managed to find ways in which interaction of religion and science could occur. While he had some weaknesses in his argument he managed to succeed in his initial goal. Dowe showed that there could be discussion among people in dealing with the idea of evolution.

            Prior to the Enlightenment there were certain aspects in society that were simply not questioned. The first and possibly most important aspect was the idea that finding answers required looking to past generations. The role of older generations was to instill traditions in new generations. In this society there was no place for innovation. Based on this first principle alone, Enlightenment was radically different because it proposed looking to science and to the future for answers and changes. Enlightenment called for breaking away from tradition and using reason to better the quality of life.

            There were numerous events that led up to the Enlightenment. The majority of them were wars spurred on in the name of religion. As these wars carried on, the authority of the church and the idea that Christianity held truth came into question. At this point men began stepping forward and proposing different ways of running society. Science, reason, change and progress were the new answers to age-old questions. Men like Rene Descartes, David Hume, and Jean Jacques Rousseau spoke of using reason to propel society forward rather than dwelling on the past. Men such as these questioned the authority the church abused so regularly by suggesting that the beliefs which the church was based upon are questionable. With the Enlightenment movement spreading and the Christian faith being doubted, Deism emerged. According to the Dictionary of Christianity in America, "deism is essentially a rationalistic religion, which assumes that all men naturally posses the ability to know the universe's Deity through reason, and that the creator of the universe was a rational architect" (Reid, Daniel G. Dictionary of Christianity in America. Dowers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990.)

            Enlightenment encouraged people to subject everything to a critical standard of reason in an effort to bring about change and progress. In addition, "enlightened thinkers argued for reform and change" (Harrison, J, R. Sullivan, and D, Sherman. "The Enlightenment." A Short History of Western Civilization, 6^th Ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985. 469). The events leading up to the formation and signing of the Declaration of Independence included the Seven Years' War which drove the British government into debt. In an attempt to alleviate that debt, Parliament enacted an increase in tax revenue from the citizens of the colonies. (The Declaration of Independence. The History Channel. October 29, 2008. [http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=Minisite_Generic&content_type_id=267&display_order=1&mini_id=1056]. In the spirit of Enlightenment, our founding fathers boldly broke away from their country of origin. The Declaration of Independence was the document in which they stated the exact reasoning behind their decision and in it, the ideology of Enlightenment and Deism burst through.

In the opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson stated that the whole point of writing the Declaration in such a formal manner was due the "a decent respect to the opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separations" (Jefferson, 1). In other words, the representatives of the United States of America reasoned that they needed to declare freedom from the British government and felt the need to express exactly why. Immediately following this statement Jefferson states that "all Men are created equal" and that they are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." (Jefferson, 1). Both of these statements express deism in that they speak of a God that provides rights to men based on the idea that "God reveals himself in nature and through reason" (Reid, Daniel G. Dictionary of Christianity in America. Dowers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990.)

The founding fathers particularly focused on subjecting the British government to a critical standard of reason and in doing so decided that the most sensible plan of action was to "absolve all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved..." (Jefferson, 3). Rather than sitting back and letting the government take control as those prior to the Enlightenment may have done, the founding fathers were led by religion and reason to analyze the current status of the colonies and then take action in improving the quality of life.

There have been numerous documents throughout history which set out to illustrate the same principles as the Declaration of Independence but there is one aspect that sets it apart from all others: rationalistic religion. All of the founding fathers were reasonable, well-educated and articulate men who firmly believed that justice was a God given right and any violation of that right by a government was justifiable cause for changing or removing oneself from that government. As such, the principles of Enlightenment and Deism were used as the premise for the Declaration of Independence. This document embodies the reason and change that both Enlightenment and Deism speak to.

Thomas Aquinas consistently writes based on the first principle of non-contradiction and on the first condition of the ability of the mind to grasp and know the truth. He spends the entirety of Chapter VII of Summa Contra Gentiles explaining that neither reason nor the Christian faith can be deemed false because of the first principle and the first condition. He describes in great detail the premise of his statements and when they are broken down, the use of the first principle and condition become blatantly obvious. Thomas Aquinas emphasizes non-contradiction and the ability of the mind to grasp the truth so much that the chapter begins to get a little repetitive. Nevertheless, he is able to get his point across.

In chapter VII of Summa Contra Gentiles Thomas Aquinas states "that the truth of reason is not in opposition to the truth of the Christian faith" (333). Immediately after making this statement, he goes on to say that the idea that reason and Christian faith cannot be opposed is beyond the ability of human reason but it must be true because there are certain things that are naturally instilled in human reason which cannot be false. Therefore, even though humans may not be able to understand Christian faith through reason, the two may never oppose each other. This is because those things that are rooted in reason by nature cannot under any circumstances be false. Following such logic, the main beliefs held by the Christian faith cannot be false because God has proved those to be true through the revelation. Since what is false by definition opposes the truth, reason and the Christian faith must both be true. The first paragraph shows the first principle of non-contradiction through the idea that both Christian faith and reason must be true because they have both been proven to be so and therefore one cannot contradict the other.  

The second paragraph in chapter VII speaks of knowledge and human beings' ability to know truth. On the one hand, Thomas Aquinas states that what humans know is based on what their teachers know. However, he also states that God has instilled in humans naturally known principles. These principles parallel "divine Wisdom" (334) and therefore cannot be false because as stated in the previous paragraph, the Christian faith cannot be false. Anything that humans come across that is contrary to those naturally instilled principles cannot be received and learned. Therefore if a teacher is attempting to teach something that contradicts those principles, which in turn would contradict God, the student cannot and will not learn. Furthermore, Thomas Aquinas states that humans cannot hold any opinions or beliefs which rival natural knowledge. The idea that humans have the ability to learn and differentiate between a contradiction and a truth shows the first condition of the mind's ability to grasp and know the truth.

The last few paragraphs of chapter VII in Summa Contra Gentiles are used to reaffirm the argument of the first condition and the first principle. Thomas Aquinas states once again that the word of faith is beyond human reason and therefore it is sometimes viewed as false or contrary to reason which is impossible given the basis of his argument at the beginning of the chapter. He goes on to state that no matter what the line of reasoning is for claiming that principles of the Christian faith are false, they hold no water because the Christian faith is undoubtedly true based on the first self evident principles instilled in humans and reason by God and nature. In addition, reason cannot be false because the truths of it have been implanted by nature. This being the case, through non-contradiction and the ability to grasp and know truth, reason and the Christian faith may both be true and may not challenge one another.

Thomas Aquinas firmly believed that reason and the Christian faith could live in harmony because they were both created by God and therefore may not contradict one another. He expressed his views thoroughly in chapter VII of Summa Contra Gentiles and upon close inspection of the text, the first principle of non-contradiction and the first condition of the mind's ability to grasp and know truth are uncovered. While he put his thoughts in different contexts and words, the first principle and condition are clearly shown, adding to the validity of their existence despite the inability to prove them in any empirical fashion.

The "startling truth" of which Angelou writes is the idea that this world does not have to be filled with violence, anger and war but rather we as humans must realize our ability to create and use logic and reason for good. She points out that we must "learn that we are neither devils nor divines" in order for violence to stop in this world. Particularly in this day in age, when the ability to make life in a test tube and take it away within seconds has been made possible, it is harder and harder for people to come to terms with the idea that we cannot control everything . Throughout the poem Angelou juxtaposes the violent nature of humans with our ability to fill others with joy. It's as though she is pointing out that while we are capable of atrocious things, there lies within each of us the basic truths of freedom, peace and justice. We all yearn to live in a world without brutality, yet the issue is so global and overwhelming it seems as though nothing can stop it. The idea that violence is not the right way to solve problems is foreign the majority of people, not just in today's society but throughout history.

While I agree that violence is not the best answer when it comes to resolving differences, I'm not sure giving it up as a method of action is the best plan at this point in time. Violence is a learned behavior and it has become so present and normal in the world that we cannot stop younger generations from witnessing it, then turning to it as a means of resolution. Humans are so different that there will always be disagreements and disputes and there is no guarantee that "the other" will not turn to it therefore we must at least leave it as an option. Violence is a vicious cycle that will most likely never end and while I don't agree that it should be the first option put into place to settle disputes, I don't think Angelou's idea of it just disappearing upon the realization of our capability to do the right thing will make it go away. I think people are fully cognizant of the fact that there are ways other than violence to solve things but because the entire world isn't functioning on that premise, individuals cannot keep from employing it.

It is impossible to talk about postmodernism without first understanding the principles of modernism and what about them caused it to fail. During the period of modernism, science served as a beacon of hope for humanity. It promised the answers to countless questions including those inquiring the purpose of life and reasons for death. It promised that the goodness of knowledge through science led to inevitable success in all areas of life. However logical these promises may seem to those who grew up in the age of modernity, history has shown that with the innovations of science humans are capable of dreadful, murderous things. The idea that the world would be put to rights through science and knowledge has been proven terribly wrong and the world is no longer satisfied with empty promises. Beginning with artists and architects, the postmodern movement has been sweeping through society leaving behind new yet abstract ideals. Rather than turning to science for all the answers, some have come to the conclusion that there may be better ways of looking at truth.

Perhaps the most difficult thing to do is define what postmodernism is because it is such an ambiguous term. The only thing that one can be certain of is that postmodernists discount what is perceived and are more interested in how something is perceived. This employs subjectivity on a huge level which makes defining postmodernism all the more difficult. Postmodernism consists of two major characteristics. The first is attention to the other, mainly the poor and marginalized. This is a very different concept of society because in the past century or so the general public has been very individualistic. Any scientific or technological advances have been mostly aimed at bettering one's own life rather than another's. In the United States in particular everything is judged and based upon capital and any lack thereof may result in exclusion from basic daily functions so advancing oneself has become central to the existence of most Americans.

This attention to the other leads to the second characteristic which is the tendency of many postmodernists to be skeptical of what has been considered to be true up until this point in time. A large part of this skepticism is due to the fact that despite all the "truths" proposed by empirical science, society seems to be pulling farther and farther away from morality. Weapons and bombs have been produced by the masses and violence in the form of entertainment is trickling into average people's lives through the media on such a shockingly constant basis that recent generations almost seem numb to it all. Furthermore, despite all the advancements and discoveries made, science has still failed to answer the ultimate question of why the universe is here and if there truly is a purpose behind it. Finally, postmodernists propose that the "truths" offered by the modernism period only serve to oppress the poor and marginalized, adding yet another reason to disregard them. While postmodern ideals are relative, they also seem to have the perspective of the poor and marginalized in mind.

The essence of postmodernism seems to be that despite all efforts made to uncover "truth" using empirical methods, there is no such thing as universal truth because truth is now considered subjective. According to postmodernists, the truths from the modernist movement award privileges to certain groups (wealthy, white, heterosexual men) and marginalized everyone else, thus these truths should be forgotten about. The very idea of postmodernism is vague because it assumes that anything, everything, and nothing is true depending on the individual. One could almost say that because the lines of truth and reality have become so blurred, they have no meaning or importance. When looking at postmodernism from this perspective, it can be related to the sentence "this sentence serves no logical purpose." It's as if all that humanity has learned through science in the last century can be thrown out the window because truth is now in the mind of the beholder.

For those growing up during this shift of ideals it may feel like the ground is being pulled from beneath their feet. Postmodernism represents ambiguity and in a sort of depressing fashion it takes meaning out of the last century or so of discoveries and innovations. On one hand, it's nice to think that everyone can be right in their own mind but postmodernists don't seem to acknowledge the fact that when everything in the world is deemed subjective, there is no room for discussions or debates on any topics because ultimately no side can prove their own opinions in a concrete way. While the way of modernity may not have been as successful as initially intended, postmodernity may not encompass the best answer either. Society is being taken from one extreme to another when the focus should be on finding a balance between the two.

A young girl spends the majority of her childhood taking care if her sick father and younger sister. When she is sixteen he passes away leaving her to take care herself and her younger sister. At her fathers' funeral a young man who used to work for her father approaches her and offers her a room in his boarding house. She is cautious because her father has warned her not to trust anyone since people may try to take advantage of her. Her father has left her a small fortune that no one knows about so that she and her sister will be well taken care of without needing to find husbands. Although no one knows for sure whether or not she has this sum of money, there are rumors and people begin to pry to try to find out the truth. The young girl and her sister move into the young man's boarding house and living in such close proximity, she begins to fall in love not knowing he is trying to take advantage of her. Meanwhile a jealous girl in the town is trying to tear the young girl and the young man apart. As she tries to do this she discovers the young man's true motives and plans to expose him for what he is. She knows that she needs to find true evidence or everyone will just see her as a stupid and jealous girl. A few days later the young man proposes to the young girl and she accepts. They will be getting married in a couple of weeks. On the wedding day the jealous girl tells the young man what she knows and what she plans to go and he is forced to postpone the wedding. He abruptly breaks up with the young girl and leaves the church leaving her broken hearted. The young sister and the young girl move out of the boarding house and it is at this point that the jealous girl approaches the young girl to tell her what she knows. The young girl thanks the jealous girl for letting her know but decides that maybe the whole thing was brought up by the jealous girl in order to tear the young man and the young girl apart. She decides to beg the young man to take her back and marry her and he says that he will only do so under the condition that she let him have control over her money. Heartbroken and confused she agrees. On the day of the wedding the jealous girl sneaks in and tries to kill the young woman but the young man discovers her and they begin to fight. The young man kills the jealous girl and the jealous girl's father kills the young man leaving the future bride in such agony that she kills herself on her wedding day. The rest of the town realizes that the rumor about the fortune must be true if it has brought on such tragedy so they all turn on the young sister, forcing her to give up the money and exiling her from the town.

Ana Jenny

In his novel Simply Christian, N.T. Wright attempts to lay out what he believes Christianity means, how Christians should act, and why it makes sense to be this way. The first part of his book, "Echoes of a Voice" is spent explaining some universal truths that all humans share regardless of whether or not they are Christian. He uses the second part, "Staring into the Sun" to delve into some deeper issues of Christian theology, such as the concept of heaven and a concept he formed based off of writings from the New Testament which he calls "life after life after death". In this second part of the novel he warns that studying theology is like "staring into the sun". There may be numerous explanations and reason for why he chose this particular metaphor but one thing is for sure: it was not unintentional.

Using the metaphor "staring into the sun" as a description of theology is helpful because it suggests that the reader take in theology little by little. The study of theology requires deep and critical thinking and taking it all in at once may be overwhelming. This could lead to frustration and rejection of any and all theological material. Another interpretation of this metaphor could be the idea that staring directly at theology and taking it for what it is rather than interpreting it in one's own way may cause confusion as well as skepticism. Many of the concepts depicted in the Bible, such as the idea that God created the earth and all things on it in a seven day time span, have gotten lot of criticism, particularly from the recent era of science and technology for being impossible or improbable in scientific terms. However, an individual who studies theology should be aware of such skepticism and realize that Biblical teachings are open to interpretation.

One thing that is problematic about using "staring into the sun" as a metaphor for doing theology is that it sounds discouraging. Parent's always warn their children against staring at the sun for the damage it might do and an individual might interpret this metaphor as a warning against studying theology at all as it can only damage one's faith. This may lead the individual to abandon any sort of faith all together, as it might seem intimidating. Wright himself states that "It's easier, actually, to look away from the sun itself and enjoy the fact that once it's well and truly risen, you can see everything else clearly" (56). The majority of people who chose Christianity by default would agree that to take a deeper look at Christian theology leads to unanswerable questions and doubts. Christianity is much easier to follow if no questions are ever raised. Moreover rather than abandoning the Christian faith, an individual may simply avoid learning anything about it but nevertheless call themselves a Christian. This may lead that individual to have the completely wrong idea of what it means to be a Christian, which may in turn negatively affect how others view Christians and Christianity as a whole.

Depending on the individual, the use of the metaphor "staring into the sun" with regards to the study of theology may be useful or daunting. Wright's work does not necessarily invite the reader to consider Christian theology more deeply because if the reader does not have a background and understanding of Christian theology prior to reading the book, its subject matter turns out to be more confusing and wearisome than helpful to the understanding of the Christian faith. The concept of a life after life after death is completely foreign and questionable to this reader since this reader has not even grasped the concept of the afterlife or heaven quite yet. If this novel were written to encourage those individuals who are on the fence about faith to take a deeper look at theology, it would not have accomplished its goal with this reader.

The use of the metaphor "staring into the sun" in reference to theology is a more discouraging one for this reader because this reader agrees that it is much easier to live life without questioning faith. However, Simply Christian is helpful in giving a new perspective to Christianity from Wright, who is very knowledgeable in the Christian faith. Although the book alone does not necessarily encourage the reader to take a deeper look at Christian theology, discussions that may follow are helpful in answering some of those doubts and questions that may be brought up by reading this book.

Overall I thought that Dr. Wentzel's lecture was interesting. However, there were a couple of times when Dr. Wentzel spoke on matters of religion where I felt uncomfortable or even upset. In speaking with a faculty member who attended Concordia when Dr. Wentzel was a professor, I came to understand why he may have said some of things he said. According to this faculty member, there was a time when Concordia did not accept students who were not of Lutheran faith. In other words, the idea of having students of any other faith or no faith at all on campus was unthinkable so he may still be in this mindset. There were a couple of times in his lecture and in answering questions afterward where I felt Dr. Wentzel made some strong statements regarding students who were not of Lutheran or Christian faith. I may have misread these statements as I tend to get a bit defensive when it comes to matters of religion but I felt upset or uncomfortable all the same.

The most important statement that comes to mind was when he was asked about how a student or faculty member should deal with students who may not be of Christian faith or who may be completely atheist. In his response he stated that the student of Christian faith should be "forceful" in his faith and try to state their beliefs to the other student in the hopes that they will be changed. To me it almost seems as though he was encouraging students to push their religion onto others. This was upsetting to me because Concordia's religious affiliation was a huge reason I almost chose not to come here. My understanding when coming here on tours was that, although religious courses were a part of the requirement, religion was not pushed upon the students in any way. It seemed hypocritical to me that on the one hand administration assures students that this is a safe environment to have one's own religious and spiritual beliefs and yet there is an influential speaker who is encouraging students to preach to each other. As I stated above, I may have misunderstood Dr. Wentzel's statement as I do tend to get defensive on the topic of religion.

This week I continued working on the brochure. I am almost done but I want to run the rough draft by my on site director before making it official. I also continued working on editing my chapter two which has been time consuming because as I've adjusted and focused my problem more so I've had to go back and look up new articles and start the process over again. I also dropped off some last donations from parents at Hand in Hand and met with my on site contact to discuss future volunteer options. Overall my project is slowing down and it's nice to feel more laid back than stressed out at the end.

I am still struggling to get my brochure put together. I have most of the information, the part that I'm having trouble with is finding a way to deliver the information in a short and sweet manner. A lot of the information is confusing to me so to sort through it all and get what it all boils down to on paper has been very time consuming. However, as I said in my previous entry I don't think all my hard work is in vain.