Sarah Koscielniak

Religion and science, put together, has often led to many heated arguments and discussions.  They have been seen to be independent of each other, where one is right and therefore the other is completely wrong.  Another thought is both are right, but deal with separate issues and must not be mixed together.  Phil Dowe continually argues in his book Galileo, Darwin and Hawking: The Interplay of Science, Reason and Religion that there is a harmonious interaction between these ways of knowing. A harmonious interaction means that both are right, and yet they work together to complement and strengthen the other. In this book, Dowe takes a look at different situations in history that seem to demonstrate the two contradicting, then makes an argument that they do have points of contact where they are harmonious with one another. Dowe successfully uses the examples of Francis Bacon and René Descartes and their respective arguments of empiricism and rationalism to demonstrate religion and science working together.

                Dowe believes that empiricism and rationalism, which are of science, help prove religion and the image of God.  One of the descriptions of the image of God is the ability to rationalize. Descartes believed that "all knowledge could be derived as part of a systematic deductive edifice based on certain truths which cannot be doubted" (62).  Descartes believed that humans do have a rational mind, much like God's rational mind.  Dowe uses this to demonstrate that rationalism and the need for science directly reflect the image of God and the mind He has blessed humans with.  A belief from Bacon is human's dominion over the Earth.  Humans are to have dominance and interaction with the world.  A human's function and responsibility is to have power over nature because that is how humans understand the image of God.  Dowe breaks it down to Descartes believing that humans are in the image of God because of reasoning--making them just spectators to the world, and Bacon believing that humans are not spectators but make practical differences in the world (71).  Dowe brings both of these together, saying that humans are both called to use reason and empiricism to display the image of God.  Dowe argues that religion and science do indeed go hand in hand and that without religion science would not have as much success as it does today.  Dowe's argument can be summed up that "certain religious beliefs provide the motivation for doing science and science's success confirms the truth of those beliefs" (80). If Descartes believes that humans are given the gift of reasoning by God, then humans are expected to understand the world.  Also, if Bacon believes that humans have the responsibility to govern the world by God, they also need to understand the world (79). This need for understanding the world through science is known as theistic religion.  Dowe's arguments have both strengths and weaknesses though.

                Dowe's strength in his argument is to take opposing thoughts and compare his argument of religion to it.  He states that constructivism is an alternate explanation that challenges his view on the importance of religion and the success of science.  Constructivism is the idea that humans "make it be so that they can construct the world in our image", therefore minimizing the success of science (81).  One way Dowe refutes constructivism is to define what he means by the successes of science and how both explanations work together.  Dowe explains there are different kinds of success and that while both constructivism and theism are able to explain knowledgeable success, only theism can explain power success.  This is because constructivism does not give power over nature, whereas with theism humans do have the capacity to successfully control nature (81).  This strengthens his argument by going back to the inference of best explanation, and ending the section with "P(S_p|I) >> P(S_p), whereas P(S_p|C) << P(S_p)" (81).  By arguing against a refuting side, it strengthens his point when he is able to prove by a way of knowing that theism is in fact the best explanation to the success of science, therefore showing that there is an interacting harmonious relationship between science and religion.  This argument is the underline for his whole book.

                A weakness that Dowe has is his assumptions.  In order for his argument to hold, it needs to assume many things.  The first assumption is that there is not a better explanation then theism.  Dowe argues that naturalism, which would be a better explanation, does not count because it is essentially the same thing as success in science and so naturalism cannot explain itself (80).  Another assumption is that science is in fact always successful.  This is the argument that shows Dowe's greatest weakness.  This assumption is the basis of his argument, and if proven false, everything that Dowe argued for, that religion promotes success in science and science when successful proves the religious beliefs to be true, would be false.  Within the Age of Reason science was believed to be successful and promote progress always.  This Age of Reason has failed after time and has shown that science does not always promote progress and success.  People no longer rely strictly on science because they have seen the destruction and chaos that science has brought to the world.  After the assumption of science always progressing has weakened, Dowe's argument on the relationship on religion and science being in a direct relationship becomes weaker.  These assumptions are dangerous because if proven false, the basis of the argument is lost.

                If the assumptions are correct, however, Dowe has much strength in his arguments.  As Dowe would write, strengths = S and weaknesses = W, therefore P(S) >> P(W). So, with inference to the best explanation, strength is the best and one should infer to it.  The inference to the best explanation is not the only way of finding truth, but it is the way that Dowe often validates his arguments.  Dowe looks at two seemingly opposing truths of religion and science and argues that their relationship does not conflict but in fact complements each other.  He supports his reasoning with mathematical ways of knowing, inference to the best explanation, and a different way of looking at topics.  

The Enlightenment age was a change in thought of what was widely accepted during the Age of Faith.   This way of thinking challenged the traditions, the religion, and the politics of the older ages.  The Enlightenment age has often been paired up with the Age of Reason, which took place in the 1700s.  These thoughts encouraged people to think for themselves, and use their right to reason.  The Enlightenment thought stressed not to depend on the traditions of past, but the reasons of change and progress from the laws of nature.  These three concepts of reason, nature, and change and progress were the basics of Enlightenment and were used by Thomas Jefferson to write the American Declaration of Independence.  The Declaration of Independence was a plea for reason.  It was written for the King of England, and stated that the thirteen colonies under Great Britain were now independent from the country.  The writing was used, as Jefferson explains, "not merely to say things which had never been said before" but to challenge mankind to look at and "place in front of them the commonsense of the subject in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent" and use reason as the basis of freedom (Age of the Sage 1). The Declaration of Independence was written in 1776, during the last years of the Enlightenment.   Another influence on the Declaration of Independence, apart from the Enlightenment was Deism.  Deism is known as a rationalistic religion.   Roughly, deists believe that the Creator gave humans the ability to reason and then remained distant from the creation after giving them this ability. Deism was one of the main religious thoughts during the Age of Reason due to its view on reason and the ability of man to understand.  Together, Deism and the Enlightenment influenced Thomas Jefferson in his writing of the Declaration of Independence.

There are three main concepts of the Enlightenment.  The first is reason.  Reason stresses that "all assumptions should be subjected to critical and empirical reasoning" (Harrison 2).  No longer were ideas and customs accepted solely because they were supported by tradition; instead, Enlightenment thinkers felt that all traditional thoughts and ways of life should be examined and reasoned.  This is exactly what Jefferson stresses in the Declaration of Independence.  Jefferson says that not only should people put old traditions that have turned destructive to reason, but it is indeed "becomes necessary" (Jefferson 1).  During the whole Declaration, Jefferson uses reason to explain why the states are becoming independent.  He uses this by examples of what the king and the nation of Great Britain have done to upset and deny the freedom of the colonies.  Reason is behind everything that Jefferson argues.

Nature is the second concept of Enlightenment; it stresses that the nature of the world is "governed by a few simple and unchangeable laws" (Harrison 3).  The law of nature and the law of reason function with one another.  This nature began as good, but humans, such as the King, had corrupted it with restrictions.  Therefore, Jefferson argues, it is the right of the people to go back to nature, and freedoms.  Jefferson continually uses the phrase "laws of nature" as a standard to how society should be treated (Jefferson 1).  He uses this as a self-evident truth.  The truths he stresses are "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness", and that all men have these rights (Jefferson 1).  Jefferson's argument was that the King was not following with these obvious truths, and thus the colonies had the right to separate.

Change and progress is the third concept of the Enlightenment.  Change is viewed as a very positive thing, which goes hand and hand with progress.  Enlightened thinkers believe that "change, when dictated by reason and when in line with nature, liberates individuals" (Harrison 4).  Jefferson used this concept by combining both reason and nature, along with change to produce progress of liberated individuals.  Underlining the declaration is the sense that humans are naturally good, but other outside restriction and religion have distorted the human thinking.  Jefferson wants change to happen with the relationship with the colonies and Great Britain, and believes only progress will come of the change.

For some Christians, the concept of nature and reason often conflicts with their beliefs.  The Age of Enlightenment therefore bred a new type of belief that complimented the value of reason.  This was notably "popular among some upper-class Americans at the time of the American Revolution" including Thomas Jefferson (Reid 1).  This belief system, however, was more of an intellectual movement then a religious one.  Deism believed that "all men naturally possess the ability to know the universe's Deity through reason, and that the creator of the universe was a rational architect" (Reid 1).  This made God only partly necessary, and gave power to man to decide what was right and what was not, in accordance to nature.  Jefferson uses Deism quite often to stress his points, mentioning "Nature's God" or "Creator" to give power from above to give power to the men who want the change and progress (Jefferson 1). 

Jefferson was an enlightened Deist thinker in the 18^th century. The influence of the Age of Reason made a huge impact on what Jefferson wrote in the American Declaration of Independence and how it was stated and organized.  No longer were tradition and past customs allowed to violate other humans.  Using reason, law of nature and change, progress happened.  The freedom of the thirteen colonies begins the revolutionary war and after the fighting, the people of the colonies finally won their independence from England in 1783.  Jefferson was able to promote and help start change and progress of the states through the Declaration of Independence.

      How can one successfully talk about truth?  There is so much uncertainty in a conversation about truth that it is necessary to have some certain truths agreed upon and believed about before one can begin.  These truths; ones that cannot be proven, but need to be accepted for a conversation about truth, are called the three primary truths.  Without the primary truths, people would be talking in circles around truth; unable to grasp or even define truth.  The three primary truths include; the fact of human's existence, the principle of non-contradiction, and the condition of the ability of the mind to know the truth.  The principle and condition of the primary truths directly relate to the relationship between reason and faith. 

Reason and faith have been perceived as opposites throughout the age of modernity, though before modernity reason and faith were viewed of having harmony in one another.  Thomas Aquinas was a philosopher and theologian in the thirteenth century who was interested in this relationship of reason and faith.  Thomas' teaching in the seventh chapter of Summa Contra Gentiles discusses the connection in both reason and faith together. Thomas states at the beginning of the chapter, "The truth of reason is not in opposition to the truth of Christian faith".  This statement is the focus of the seventh chapter.  Thomas uses the primary truths of non-contradiction and the ability of the mind to know the truth to demonstrate his conviction of the harmony between reason and faith.  The principle of non-contradiction and the condition of the mind's ability to know truth are in vital need to be accepted in order for Thomas' arguments to be valid.  Thomas heavily depends on these truths to prove that reason and faith do not contradict each other but in fact compliment.

                Thomas believes that if two things are true, than they simply cannot contradict one another.  If they do contradict, one must be false.  In this statement lies in the first principle--there are no contradictions in truth.  In order to make his argument, Thomas gives reasons why both reason and faith are true.  Reason is a naturally implanted principle; given to humans by God.  It is impossible for a human to think these reasons to be false.  This naturally instilled reason can be included in science, math and any other man-based reasoning.  Yet, if anytime the reasoning of men conflict with God and faith in Him; it is not the truth anymore.  Knowledge through faith has been given by God.  God has confirmed the truth of faith to humans along with the truth of reason, therefore both are true.  Thomas says that because both are true, and the principle of non-contradiction holds to be true, "it is impossible" for the truth from faith to be contrary to "those principles which reason knows naturally".  It simply cannot happen.  If one truth does conflict with the other truth, then the one of the truths is false and cannot be true. 

                Thomas stresses the first condition; human minds have the ability to know the truth.  He uses this primary truth for argument that God has indeed implanted natural reasoning so that humans can understand the truth of Him.  Thomas concludes, "Whatever arguments are alleged against the teachings of faith, do not rightly proceed from the first self-evident principles instilled by nature".  This statement shows that humans are indeed instilled with self-evident principles which help one grasp the concept of truth.  Without this instilled knowledge, to even talk about truth would be pointless.  Thomas ties in this condition again with the idea that God has given humans both the ability to know truth; and the truth itself.  The significance of this statement is that God instilled this ability to know truth so that one may use that reason to discover His truth, God did not instill in humans conflicting knowledge--knowledge that disproves Him.  Any knowledge that humans have that disproves God and the knowledge humans have by faith, is not naturally instilled, therefore not truth. 

                Together these two primary truths lead to the harmony of reason and faith.  One conflicting with the other is not true.  Humans have the ability to know what truth is and are given this ability, along with the gift of reasoning, to be able to discern God's truth.  Why then should reasoning and faithfulness be opponents?  They have a direct correlation together that should be embraced.  They complement one another when there are no answers for the other. Reason and faith work together in harmony.

          Maya Angelou recited her poem A Brave and Startling Truth to the United Nation's fiftieth anniversary.  This poem speaks of a world turned better "when we come to it" (Angeou 12).  Throughout the poem she often repeats and goes back to that same phrase.  She believes that once we learn this brave and startling truth, than we will have come to the perfect world.  The truth that she stresses is the claim and realization that humans are the true wonder of this world.  We can make the difference and are the miraculous.  Humans just need to believe it for this truth to become true.  After we believe it, the world will be at peace, with no more wars, countries, abuse, and ext.  She uses many universal truths of beauty, choices, self-expression, conscience, death, dreams, emotion, fear, justice, life, loss, pride, thought...a list of truths that will touch all the readers with a wanting of that peace and those answers.

                I do not agree with this brave and startling truth.  Though I wish some day to feel that peace, and to end all injustice, I have learned that it is simply not enough to say that something is true.  You cannot simply believe it and then it is a truth.  Out of the 15 some ways to test a truth, I have found that none of them at able to be tested on this truth.  There is no way to test to see if this could actually happen.  It is a dream and a hope for humans--yet again, not a truth.  This theory of a better way of life would be great if one day it was able to be proved, when all humans could at some point believe this.  There is also contradiction of the power of humans, and in that contradiction there can be no truth, due to the primary truths that humans have learned.

Postmodernism Serves no Logical Purpose

The more one thinks about something simple, the more that something turns complex.  The reader over analyzes, under analyzes, and then scratches one's head--which is exactly what this writer is doing.  A sentence that serves no logical purpose should not cause one to be so puzzled, and yet that is exactly its intent. Postmodernism has taken what has long been accepted; turned it on its head and has thrown it back to the human race.  One thing the reader should understand is that postmodernism does not play by the rules.  It does not take into consideration the primary truths.  These primary truths are vital to be able to have a conversation about truth, it is implied that they are true.  First, the fact of human existence.  Second, there are no contradictions in truth and if there are contradictions, it simply is not truth.  Finally, that all humans have the ability of the mind to talk about truth.  There are many contradictions in postmodernism, and in that sense, it is extremely ironic and can leave one in the dark due to the circle-like logic.   This writer hopes to discuss what postmodernism and how a sentence with no logical purpose illustrates postmodernism perfectly.

                Postmodernism cannot be defined in a sentence or even a paragraph.  In fact, to define postmodernism would be simply not postmodernistic of someone.  Postmodernism is based off of an era of time called modernism.  Modernism was a time in the world where science and reason were dominant and were used to answer all questions. Modernism promoted human progress such as evolution and communism.  The language in modernism needed to be rational and useful.   Then after the years science and reason stopped having all the answers to life; it left people questioning and trying to find a new answer.  They found the answer in postmodernism.  It is a mix of genres and a shift to a nonfunctional society.  It is an advanced consumer capitalist.  It is a questioning of everything that was once accepted; such as science and reason.  People have their own say in truths.  No longer is a teacher more valued than the students.  Everyone is equal and yet individual.  A focus on not the people in power who decide truth; but on the marginalized.  This last statement has a large impact on how postmodernism deals with truth.  Meta-narratives only focus on the broad terms of human society and have often left the marginalized forgotten and oppressed.  Postmodernism strives to end the broad story of humans to a more personal and realization that each person has their own story.  Therefore, the base of truth is all relative and subjective; there is no absolute truth.  To each person is their own truth, their own story.  Yet in stating that there is no absolute truth, one has just said an absolute truth.  Welcome to postmodernism, where contradiction is encouraged.

                A sentence that states, "This sentence serves no logical purpose." would be a great way to explain postmodernism.  Simply stating that it has no logical purpose gives it logical purpose.  That is just the way it is. The sentence made the purpose of claiming it served no purpose.  It causes one to think logically of what the sentence means and how to interpret it.  In the same way, postmodernism has logical purpose, no matter how much people stress that it does not.  Postmodernism is trying not to have a set truth, definition, or logical purpose.  The same as it states there is no absolute truth.  They state an absolute truth in their statement.  The pursuit not to have purpose or definition in fact defines and gives purpose. This brings irony and contradiction to postmodernism.  If a person is talking in circles about a subject, and openly contradicts oneself, more than likely that person is a postmodernist. 

                Postmodernism serves no logical purpose.  Yet it is a way to logically view the world and the truths that surround humanity.  Modernity was an extreme way to try and make sense of the world, using just science and reason to answer everything.  Postmodernism reacted to modernism in an extreme way.  It denies absolute truth and believes that people make their own truths.  There is a need to question everything.  There is a shift of authority from the people in power to the marginalized and forgotten.  There is no longer the comfort of a formula that was once true in modernism.  The best way to define postmodernism is to simply say it is everything that before was not.  The definition can get very messy and contradictory very fast; so sometimes it is easier for one just to nod one's head and let the contradictions fly.

No one will ever know everything about Christianity.  People may try to crack the code with theology, but in the end there are some things humans may never grasp.  In Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense, N.T. Wright acknowledges that Christianity has an interesting combination of simplicity and complexity.  He divides his book into three parts; Echoes of a Voice, Staring at the Sun, and Reflecting the Image.  In part two, Staring at the Sun, he focuses on the paradox nature of the religion.  He uses the metaphor of staring at the sun as a way of putting a physical item to a conceptual idea.  This metaphor can both help and hurt trying to understand theology.  Throughout the book Wright challenges this idea of theology and the place it has in Christianity.  This essay is about this metaphor and the final invitation Wright gives to the readers.

                Staring at the sun is a metaphor in the sense of theology of Jesus and Christianity as a whole.  The sun is illuminating and it brings light to dark places, and exposes things for what it is.  Yet, something so beautiful and warming can also be dangerous.  The sun is not meant to be stared at; and if a person does stare at the sun, especially for too long, it is very easy to damage one's eyesight.  After a while the person is no longer able to see what it is he was trying to look at in the first place, which is the light that the sun illuminates.  He is unable to see the world around him, because there is a huge blind spot in his eye.  In the same way, theology is illuminating.  It brings light to dark places and exposes things for what they are.  Without theology there would be darkness and confusion in Christian religion.  There would be no growth, much like how sun is needed for things to grow.  Theology is needed, but just like staring at the sun, it is not recommended to stare intensely at either.

If theology is the main focus at which Christians place their gaze, instead of finding the heart of Christianity, they find themselves blind to what is really offered.  Wright states "Christian sense is like staring into the sun"; yet he insists that, "it's easier" for one "to look away from the sun itself" and to just look around the world the sun affects and "see everything else clearly" (56).  This explains perfectly why theology becomes frustrating and often turns people away from Christianity.  Why would one stare at something that hurts?  Theology and the sun have the same type of power to both illuminate and blind.  Much like when people gaze at the sun too much; the more we study theology and become technical in our faith, the more we become blind to the things around us (99).

                Theology is not always like staring into the sun and that is when the metaphor becomes problematic.  For example, just glancing at the sun for a moment can bring pain to a person's eye and damage eye sight.  Theology is still vital to understanding the Christian faith and is important not to get completely forgotten.  Looking at theology occasionally is not always damaging like the sun.  Christians need to know what makes their religion different from others.  If humans were to never think about theology; there would be no growth in Christian belief.  Christianity is based on the belief that Jesus not only saved humanity, but "is the fulcrum around which world history turns", and if Christians truly believe that Jesus made such an impact on the world, they should know how and why that is true (111).  Knowing theology and the Bible is a form of worship.  God placed the Word to be looked at, unlike the sun in which nothing good comes from looking directly at it.  The Torah is, "one of the places where heaven and earth meet" and doing some theology and to worship God with the reading of the Torah is to experience the interception of the two (132).   

Throughout the book, Wright comments on the pros and cons of theology.  In the end, Wright does not invite Christians to consider Christian theology deeper. The main emphasis on this is "deeper".  Wright goes to the trouble of reminding the reader that theology is not a bad thing in itself, but if looked at so intensely that it becomes much like staring at the sun, Christians will fast become discouraged and distracted with what God really wants.  Wright cleverly realizes that "the Bible is there to enable God's people to be equipped to do God's work in God's world" and that by no means is it "to give Christians an excuse to sit back smugly, knowing they possess all God's truth" (184). It is great to read the Bible and to understand what a Christian believes, but when it becomes trying to "get God in a corner, pin him down, and force him to submit to human inspection", humans should know they've got it wrong (57).  Christians need to use the Spirit instead of resting in their own understanding.  Wright agrees with theology, yet does not give an enthusiastic invitation to deep theology to the reader; instead he invites them to discover what they believe, and live out that belief to show others and to do God's will. 

Hello again everyone! Hope all your summers are good and everyone's having fun!

I myself have been having a crazy busy summer with traveling all over the place the past few months. I went to Honduras for a week on a mission trip where I fell in love with the country and culture and people (they are sooo beautiful there!!!), then a week after that went on a cruise to the carribeans with my aunt and uncle and cousin (talk about culture shock! but I took the time to learn about their culture and to take time to relax and appretiate life), the week after that I went to the Upper Penisula to my grandma's cabin (we've had that cabin in our family since the 40s, built by my greatgrandpa) with my whole family, and now I'm heading to Tennesse to see my dad's side of the family and my cousin is getting married there! woo! It's been a great experience with so many memories and pictures...

Anyway, I've been reading Simply Christian, as most of you are aswell, and I really enjoyed the first part, with the echoes of a voice. I just ate it all up and have related to so much of it.  The second part was also very good, the parts where it really looks at what was going on during the time of Jesus, and the time the Bible was written, becuase let's be honest, most of us don't usually take the time to put all of that into consideration! 

A few things I have a bit of a hard time with understanding:
I get the impression from some of the sections of Jesus not knowing what He was sent to do/how to do it.  I always thought that Jesus knew what he had to do and how when He was sent down, and so this form of uncertainity from Jesus is hard to understand. 

Also, this summer a group of followers and I have been studying "Finding Our Way Again" a book that so far I highly recommend, but I'm really only at the 3rd chapter so I havn't read it all yet, and some of the things we're talking about is how much Christianity is a belief system and how much of it is a way of life, for example how in the bible Christianity was first called "The Way" and it was more of a way of life, or a way of living.  But I guess N.T. Wright isn't completely condoning that, just saying it isn't the main focus of Christianity, which I understand somewhat more.

Well, those are just a few things that have been popping into my mind as I read this, I've got lots of highligts (you'll find this out about me... I'm one of those people that highlights EVERYTHING) and little scribbles... Hope to hear some responses on what you take of the uncertainty of Jesus and on Christianity mainly solely being a belief system!

:) God's blessings, and I'm getting reallllly excited to meet you all and spending this year together with all of you!

Here are some pictures of my summer adventures!

Honduras, with my two darling friends Smelly and Sylvia :) Smelly was my little buddy

Enjoying Shuffle board while we were leaving St. Thomas

Horseback riding in St. Lucia!

my grandparents helped build this playground, so my sisters and I have our names on a board!

my friends and I had a tea party at a local park one day! can't forget about those hometown adventures!

Haha.... Thanks everyone for spending time to look at those pictures and read my pondering thoughts... hope to hear from people on the discussions...