The Limitations of Common (Mis)Conceptions

This blog is broadly about a flourishing, fully alive faith.

Because science has riches to offer our faith, sometimes as a challenge, but even more as a resource, these posts often address topics in science and religion. This time I’m addressing the complexity of understanding that latter term. 

Why? I read two articles this week that made it really difficult to stick with stereotypes and their (mis)conceptions about religion in American. They also touch on topics of particular relevance in light of the opening of an impeachment inquiry.

The first posed the question, “Who’s an evangelical and who gets to decide?”

It noted that Beth Moore, the fabulously popular evangelical speaker, and Southern Baptist Convention leader Russell Moore, and even (I added “even” since he so often seems a walking stereotype of conservative evangelicalism) John Piper the notable pastor and author—all “white evangelical” leaders—have expressed significant concerns about President Trump. Not everyone is Jerry Falwell, Jr.—a fact I'm quite thankful for. 

But even more, it demonstrated how… well, I’ll just quote it,

“Nonwhite evangelicals, especially African Americans, Asian Americans and Latinos, were less enthusiastic about Trump. Polls often exclude such nonwhite evangelicals by design, as stories about ‘evangelicals and politics’ typically only look at “self-identifying evangelical white Republicans and politics.” Article, "Who's an evangelical and who gets to decide"? 

What seemed like a simple association—"evangelical” implies "Trump supporter"—became much nuanced, and to my mind, exceedingly more interesting.

The second was not actually an article, but a rather extensive report by the Pew Research Center with a somewhat boring title, “The Religious Typology,” but explosive implications—by which I mean, if we take this seriously, our stereotypical ideas about American religion will be exploded.

Pew's new religious typology breaks Americans into seven categories with much more captivating titles like Diversely Devout (traditionally religious, but open to reincarnation and psychics), Relaxed Religious (religion important to them, but not engaged in traditional practice), and Spiritually Awake (skew more toward New Age and untraditional religious practice). About 43% of Americans are in these three—spiritually open, but not entirely religious identified.

Since I can’t leave politics this week, the 12% Pew found to be God and Country—these fit most closely with the white evangelicals that support Trump. That’s like 1 in 8 Americans. These are the engaged Trump supporters. Not all evangelicals are full-throated in their support of the Republican Party and our President? Case closed? Not quite—but minimally some new insights.

All this reinforces what I discovered when I was writing Negotiating Science and Religion in America,

“'One day I woke up and wondered: maybe today I should be a Christian, or would I rather be a Buddhist, or am I just a Star Trek freak?'” And so Leigh Eric Schmidt begins his 2012 book on the American individualized spiritualty, Restless Souls: The Making of American Spirituality in which he demonstrates that, while plenty of contemporary examples exist, so do precedents in our country’s history, and also charts (as Wade Clark Roof describes it inside its cover) the 'lineage from Emerson to Oprah.' Already in the nineteenth century, Philip Schaff described America as 'the classic land of sects,' and John Weiss offered this declaration, which summarizes so much: 'America is an opportunity to make a Religion out of sacredness of the individual.'
The American cultural tradition of religious pluralism, which chooses among various inputs for spirituality, is longstanding and venerable. The past directs our present. Americans have always held copious strands of religious threads in our hands, which we weave together in fascinating ways. An excerpt from my upcoming book Negotiating Science and Religion in America

At times of high political drama, or even when we just want to understand this unusual country, it’s entirely complicated to grasp American religious life—and probably better not to lean on stereotypes and (mis)conceptions.

Re-Animated Soul Dialogue, Part 3

As I mentioned last week, my brother Marcus, who is also a novelist, helped me rewrite one of my previously posted Soul Dialogues to make it funnier and more interesting. 
Since this blog often looks at themes in religion and science, the topic of the soul fits right in. What is the soul? Is it a solely religious concept? Is it something science can study? What am I doing talking to my imaginary friend Dan? And why are we now in Oxford's Addison's Walk at Magdalen College thousands of miles from where we started? (I suppose that's what happens when you converse with an imaginary friend.) 

So many questions to ponder... In any event, this is the third and final part.

Dan: Greg, knowing you as I do, I can’t believe we’re done with this topic already. I thought I’d hear about positive psychology, Scripture, and becoming fully alive. Let me hear it all—whatever you’ve got to say.

Greg: You are a true imaginary friend, wanting to so generously hear all that I have to say. And before you’ve had an imaginary lunch.Let me start with this: When I was trained in the humanities at Cal, I learned that Sigmund Freud called religion an illusion. (Today Richard Dawkins echoes this and calls religious belief a “delusion.”) Put in simple form: If you believe in God, you’re crazy. The more you believe, the crazier you are.

Dan: I’ve heard some of that myself.

GSC: But science doesn’t agree with either of them.  Research—the kind backed up by quantitative and statistical analysis—points to the opposite conclusion. By and large, religious belief leads to happier lives.

Dan: I want to believe it, but says who?

GSC: Well, first of all, the Greater Good Magazine at UC Berkeley (my alma mater—Go Bears!) has demonstrated the psychological benefits of forgiveness. Second, Health talked about the “Surprising Health Benefits of Religion” like lower blood pressure, more life satisfaction, more resilience, healthier immune system, and a longer life. You might say that, when we say yes to God, we say yes to happiness, the abundant life, and human flourishing.  Choose one of the three for a description, but if you ask, Do I want one of these? The answer is Yes.

Dan: The science sounds compelling. But what about Scripture and human flourishing?

GSC: There are so many examples, but here’s one. I remember attending a conference on technology and faith where, at a lunchtime conversation, a bright, young physicist, who struck me as both articulate and ebullient, told me how she had struggled with depression. One of her problems was perseverating—

Dan: Perseverating?

GSC:Yes. Perseverating. Thinking about the same thing over and over.

Dan: Of course. Of course. Of course.

Greg pauses for just a moment. Dan shrugs.

GSC: Anyway, the cognitive response she learned through her therapist was to let her brain saturate on positive thoughts—to perseverate on positivity, perhaps. And she pointed to New Testament book of Philippians (which we talked about back in Chico) as a beautiful expression of that work. 

Dan: There’s that name again.

GSC: I’m telling you.

Dan: I’m hearing you.

Greg stops mid-walk, caught up in the moment and his thoughts.

GSC: Do you want to hear something else?

Dan: Yes.

GSC: Okay. (With some excitement and gestures) Here’s how Eugene Peterson paraphrases the key verse I mentioned earlier: 

“I’d say you’ll do best by filling your minds and meditating on things true, noble, reputable, authentic, compelling, gracious—the best, not the worst; the beautiful, not the ugly; things to praise, not things to curse.”

Dan: We should probably start walking again. Folks are beginning to stare. But I like where you’re going.

Greg begins walking again.

Dan: So, Greg, my friend, it’s getting close to lunch, you’ve been philosophizing for a while, and I’ve been wondering if there’s some payoff from all this discussion of the soul. Greg, what’s your point?

GSC: Integration. That’s my point. Bringing all of our soul to all of God. 

To be one, wholly—and holy—God’s. That is the point of talking about the soul.

Dan: This is good – we’re back on the soul.

GSC:  Is it ok if I preach it?

Dan: Of course. Greg gotta Greg.

Greg stops again, taken over by the moment.

GSC: I’m convinced there’s just one you, and there’s simply one me that God created. We can talk about “body” and “soul” and “spirit” and “mind.” But God doesn’t want us separated. God wants us to be one person who relates to our one Lord. Now science does tell us that parts of the human brain developed in different ways, and so it’s natural (in that sense) to feel dis-unified. But spiritual life is the practice and power that brings us together and in some ways works to reverse what’s natural.

Dan: Greg is definitely Gregging!

GSC: Yes! Disunity is at least one huge component of sin. Isn’t that what Paul lamented in Romans 7—“I don’t understand my own actions”—that there were at least two selves fighting against each other? Sometimes it feels like a barroom brawl inside of my noggin!

And this seems to me to be one key element of monotheism—our belief in one God. We don’t go from deity to deity, like ancient pagans did—a god for our work guild, another god for love, another for the political life, and yet another for the home. And so on… As Christians, we know one God who loves, creates, and redeems all of us. At our best then, our souls aren’t separate parts of us, warring against everything else—against our flesh, or whatever else.Instead, being fully alive is bringing all of us to all of God. If anything, the soul ought to describe that unity. To be one, wholly—and holy—God’s. That is the point of talking about the soul.

How’s that for a soapbox moment?

Dan: You had me at “disunity.”  And now I’m really hungry. Soul food?

GSC: Sounds nourishing. Let’s go.

Greg walks on again.

Re-Animated Soul Dialogue, Part 2

As I mentioned last week, my brother Marcus, who is also a novelist, helped me rewrite one of my previously posted Soul Dialogues to make it funnier and more interesting. Since this blog most often takes up themes in religion and science, the topic of the soul fits right in. What is the soul? Is it something science can study? Is it a specifically religious concept? And what am I doing talking to my imaginary friend Dan? Why are we now in Chico's Upper Bidwell Park five miles away from where we started?
Questions to ponder...
I submit to you the part deux. In last week's edition, I'd just stated "it’s also what makes sense in the church."

Dan: So things are good?

GSC: Yes, so far they are. What are you thinking?

Dan: Well, I just have a feeling that you’d want me to do this, so I’m going to get all specific right now.What do you mean by “it”?

GSC: I mean the way that we bring together all we are—body and soul—under the power of the Spirit.

Dan: Got it.And, what about the Bible?

GSC: What about the Bible you ask?

Dan: Yes.

GSC: Well,glad you asked. I have one word for you.

Dan: Yes?

GSC: Philippians.

Dan: Philippians?

GSC: Philippians. It’s just 104 verses, but in it you can find the answer to almost every theological question. 

Dan: In just those 104 verses, everything you want to about God is contained! That’s amazing!

GSC: Thank you, Ed McMahon. (Last-century-Johnny-Carson-Tonight-Show reference.)

Dan: Dan.

GSC: Dan. 

Dan: Please, no applause. Just doing my job.

GSC: At any rate, it’s true—and in Philippians.

Dan: Yeah.  Heard that somewhere. So the Bible agrees?

GSC: It does. I think about chapter four and Paul’s emphasis on the mind, or our attitude: 

“Finally, beloved, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.” Philippians 4

Mindset directs hearts. That’s how God made us.

Dan: Ok, that makes sense.  But that’s not all, is there? We’re not near the lunch place yet.

GSC: There’s more, don’t worry.I think next we need to take on a common misconception about life and happiness.

Dan: I see, a nice small topic before our meal. What are you thinking?

GSC: I’m remembering something I heard the other day in a sermon—“Christian faith isn’t all in your head.” On the one hand, Amen to that! On other, faith isn’t all in your feelings, either!

Dan: Not to be too philosophical, but no, duh.

GSC: I know, right? But people fall for the feelings trap. “If it feels good, it’s right.” To which I say, “Really?” Your feelings change. They’re not a reliable guide. Instead, put your faith in what you know to be true and the feelings will follow.

Dan: So, cart after horse?

GSC: Exactly.

Dan:  But wait, hold on, I am your imaginary friend, but I have to ask, as a friend,what have you got against emotion? Isn’t everything you care about based on emotion?

GSC: Good question! 

Dan: Again, just doing my job.

GSC: I love emotion. And like Jonathan Edwards’s famous 18^thcentury defense of “religious affections,” emotions or “affections” are central to most believers’ understanding of Christian faith and most people’s experience of life.

Dan: Sounds true. Or at least accurate. But is there a difference for Edwards between emotions and affections?

GSC: Yes. “Affections” for Edwards represented something a bit more substantial than ephemeral emotions. Still the point stands—it’s not all cold rationality. 

Dan: That sounds right. And makes sense. You’ve convinced me again. As Plato often comments in his dialogues, “Socrates, you are the wisest man alive.”

GSC: Thanks.

Dan: What are friends like me for? And I know you’re about to expound again, but one more thing.

GSC: Yes?

Dan: Aren’t these affections or emotions a gift to give us motivation?

GSC: God definitely gives us emotions or feelings. At the same time, it’s not feelings that define us. It’s actually walking in God’s way that does. As C.S. Lewis wrote in a letter in 1950, using “obedience,” a word not heard much today, 

“Obedience is the key to all doors: feelings come (or don’t come) and go as God pleases. We can’t produce them at will and mustn’t try.” C.S. Lewis

Dan: No one writes letters like that anymore.

GSC: Or allegorical fantasy, for that matter, either.

Dan: Word!

GSC: Indeed.

Dan: And I get what he’s saying, but what do we do with someone like neuroscientist Antonio Damasio? He’s found that, without emotions, we can’t make moral decisions. 

GSC: Theology and science intersecting and complementing. Nice segue, my friend.

Dan: You’ve taught me well. And, come to think of it, how about Jonathan Haidt? He notes that often we, with our rational deliberation, are simply the rider on the back of the elephant of emotions. 

GSC: Tru dat as well! But the point is that, through taming our emotions, learning how to engage our rationality, and living in a good community, we learn to direct the elephant. I think Haidt is onto something, but takes it too far.

Dan: So both emotions and reason need to work together, but it’s how we actually live that defines our happiness?  Yes?

GSC: Yes, well summarize you, young Padawan.

Dan: Dan.

GSC: Dan. Much learned have you learned today.

Re-Animated Soul Dialogue, Part 1

My brother Marcus, who is also a novelist, helped me rewrite one of my previously posted Soul Dialogues to make it funnier and more interesting. Since this blog most often takes up themes in religion and science, the topic of the soul fits right in. What is the soul? Is it something science can study? Is it a specifically religious concept? And what am I doing talking to my imaginary friend Dan? 
Questions to ponder...
I submit to you the first part.

GSC:  Dan? You there?

Dan (Imaginary Friend): Yeah, Greg.  Right here.  Always here. What’s up?

GSC:  Walking and philosophizing.

Dan:  Can’t say no to that.  In fact, I can’t say no to anything you ask me.  What do you want to talk about?

GSC:  The soul. 

Dan:  Right on.

GSC:  And Aristotle.

Dan:  That was my next guess. Can we get lunch too?

GSC:  Sure. My treat.  You never eat very much.

Dan: That probably explains why I’m always hungry. And incorporeal. Let me just put on my imaginary kicks and we’re off. 

Greg and Dan hit the streets of downtown Chico. Only Greg is visible to other humans.

Dan: So, the soul, huh?  What’ve you got?

GSC: Let’s start with Webster’s definition.

Dan: Love Webster.  What’s it say?

GSC: That the soul, my imaginary friend –

Dan: Dan.

GSC: Dan. Is (according to Webster’s) “the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life.”

Dan: And you agree?

GSC: Yes, let’s at least start there. But I also have a thesis.

Dan: Okay, lay it on me.

GSC: What Webster says is fine, but in order to have our souls become fully alive, we need to reconcile the inputs of our hearts and minds. Or as Jesus phrased it, “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.” This is happiness. This is the essence of Christian spirituality.

Dan: I’m with you on that, of course, but why do you care?

GSC: Well, here’s the thing.I know I’m not always emotionally “up,” and that if I rely on my feelings it’s shaky ground. It’s what disappoints me with “spirituality” today in the U.S. Too much emphasis on feeling and excitement. It’s like we all have to be amped up and happy to be spiritually whole and integrated. 
Dan: This just a feeling you have?
GSC: Very funny. But no, not at all. It’s from research, my friend. I’ve just finished a book about the history of religion and science in our country. And I’ve found that as a people, we’ve done much better when we’ve put together our strong thread of rationality alongside our deep search for spirituality. 

Dan: Didn’t the Harvard scientist and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead say something like that in 1925? 

GSC: In fact he did! You are way inside my head. 

Dan: True. But I’m stealing your lines. You go. It is your blog.

GSC: Alright. Thanks. He thought that, to some degree, the future of our civilization depended on how effectively we were able to relate science and religion, particularly “the force of our religious intuitions, and the force of our impulse to accurate observation and logical deduction.” 

Dan: Almost a hundred years ago. What a thinker. And you?

GSC: I’m with him. In my own pastoral and professorial experience: people too often divide themselves between head and heart. So it’s also what makes sense in the church, as well.
[End of part one]

Keeping Faith in a Science-Saturated Culture

Recently, I was asked to answer the question of how Christians keep faith--and even provide a witness--in a science-saturated culture.

I came up with three answers.

First of all, I'd learn from the great scientists in the past and present and be inspired by the heritage of Christians in the sciences.

It’s clear that almost every great thinker of the explosion of science in the sixteenth and seventeenth scientific revolution were deeply affected by the Gospel: Copernicus, Pascal, and Galileo. Does that last name surprise you? At least in part, he was trying to reform the Catholic church of his time so that they would take in the emerging sun-centered (heliocentric) universe, and in the process he made remarkable statements about faith and his scientific work:

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” Galileo Galilei

And then, as science continued to develop, great thinkers like Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell were both profoundly committed to their Christian faith as they made their mark on 19th-century science. Today this legacy is carried forward by Jennifer Wiseman, who is Senior Project Scientist for NASA’s Hubble space telescope, and by Francis Collins led the Human Genome Project and now heads the National Institutes of Health. 

“I find that studying the natural world is an opportunity to observe the majesty, the elegance, the intricacy of God's creation.” Francis Collins

Second, I'd remember the beauty in reading God’s two books, the book of nature and the book of Scripture. Consider how this comes together in two verses in Psalm 19:

"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." Psalm 19:1 

"The law of the Lord is perfect, refreshing the soul." Psalm 19:7

These biblical verses speak about these two books, which are complementary (though not exactly the same) and have one Author. God has written the law (or Torah) to direct human life and has authored the natural world, which leads us to see God's glory.

  

Third, I'd continue to learn worship through insights into the beauty and intricacy of the natural world. As the 18th-century theologian and natural philosopher Jonathan Edwards wrote about the beauty in nature: 

“All the beauty to be found throughout the whole creation is but the reflection of the diffused beams of that Being who hath an infinite fullness of brightness and glory.” Jonathan Edwards

Minding Our Humanity

Mind: “the element or complex of elements in an individual that feels, perceives, thinks, wills, and especially reasons” (Webster's Dictionary)

Marilynne Robinson's third chapter from Absence of Mind analyzes the thought of Sigmund

Nietzsche, Marx, and Freud: The Three Atheists of My Undergrad Years

Freud (1856-1939), who clearly positioned himself as a "scientist," analyzing the depths of humanity. The mind is central to Freud and to Robinson's book and naturally represents a topic of considerable interest in the dialogue of theology with science, particularly with neuroscience and cognitive science. Robinson takes on the topic primarily from the angle of philosophy and the history of ideas.

Here is a representative quotation from the chapter. 

"If there is one thing Freud asserts consistently, from which every theory proceeds and to which every conclusion returns, it is just this--that the mind is not to be trusted.” Marilynne Robinson

Robinson's point in Absence of Mind is that modern thinkers--through people like Freud in the past as well as Stephen Pinker and E. O. Wilson today--have led us to an absence of mind, which represents a serious reduction of what it means to be human. (In that previous sentence, I wrote that "modern thinkers" were critiquing our trust in human thought, which of course is oxymoronic and probably a striking example of "sawing off the branch you're sitting on.")

I think Robinson's right in many ways, and yet I have to add the theological categories of

doubt and sin. Put another way, is the mind a single entity? For example, we might say, “I’m of two minds on that issue.” And the Bible describes doubt, as in James 1: 8 as being “double-minded." Moreover, Paul in Romans 7 seems torn up by warring minds,

"I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do." Romans 7:15, Paul

And yet, Jesus clearly believed that the mind is essential in responding to God,

“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’" Matthew 22:37, Jesus

This indeed, is the "greatest commandment," which when added with love of our neighbor, summarizes God's will for us.

That leaves some questions to ponder because I think many Christians today don't trust the mind and consistently propose that we need to listen to our "hearts"--by which they mean emotions (which is not the biblical definition by any stretch) and thus reject the mind. Note above that Webster’s definition includes “feels, perceives, thinks, wills” and not simply “reasons.” 

Do you trust your mind? To what degree why or why not? Is your mind a gift from God? What gets in the way of a trustworthy mind? What makes it trustworthy or untrustworthy? 


P.S. If you're interested in viewing and/or hearing Robinson's fourth chapter, "Thinking Again," it was also the fourth of her 2009 Terry Lectures on Religion in the Light of Science and Philosophy at Yale, which appears in her book with the title.

Let’s Follow Leonardo and His Renaissance Blend

I’m preparing for my fall humanities class at Chico State (HUMN 222), and one of the best parts is rediscovering the breadth of insight in the thought leaders of western culture since the Renaissance. One of those is Leonardo Davinci (1452-1519), whom I’ve discovered partly through reading Walter Issacson’s biography, but certainly also through looking at Leonardo’s brilliant works of art like The Mona Lisaand The Last Supper. (And, by the way, please don’t be through off in understanding that latter painting by taking Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code seriously—that is truly a work of fictional speculation, not of art history, let alone religious insight.)

I’ve been struck by the way Leonardo expertly blended what we think of as science and the humanities… or at least what we call “science” since in his day it would have been natural philosophy. Much of this he collected in the 13,000 pages of writing in his assorted notebooks, some of which contain proto-helicopters and a near discovery—through his extensive studies of anatomy—of the circulation of blood about a century and a half before William Harvey’s definitive work in 1628. 

Natural philosophy—that is, at its root looking at the natural world though a love of wisdom—is descriptive because nature was the source of Leonardo’s inspiration. He is quoted, 

“Nature is the source of all true knowledge. She has her own logic, her own laws, she has no effect without cause nor invention without necessity.” Leonardo Da Vinci

Nature offered insight into peerless paintings like the Mona Lisa, which emerged from a lifelong study of optics, psychology, and artistic technique.

Most of this blog (at least in the past few years) has been focused on topics in science and religion. And though Leonardo demonstrated a sensitivity to the subtleties of Jesus’s betrayal by Judas in The Last Supper, most commentators take Leonard to be relatively uncommitted to any particular religion… or perhaps religion at all. Today science has become much more complex and those who practice science often need highly specialized skills. (I’m thinking of a friend who does research at CERN).

Still, I think Leonardo has something to offer us today: a curiosity unbounded by the boundaries of discipline, but instead relentless pursuing nature and its wisdom. Why do most of have to niche ourselves in artistic, humanistic, or scientific pursuits? Let’s follow Leonardo.

Might I add that we can follow the creation back to the Creator and find in both numerous topics worthy of our wonder? 

ETs and the Incarnation (with Insights from C. S. Lewis)

I wrote this week's eSTEAM, online newsletter, on whether the existence of extraterrestrials would invalidate our teaching of the Incarnation, that is, that God became human.

(If you want to subscribe to eSTEAM, by the way, you can do that here.)

This post complements  C. S. Lewis and ETs from three weeks ago. Here's a lightly edited excerpt from this week's eSTEAM...

Does the possible existence of ETs invalidate the Incarnation? 

Some assert that the discovery of other planets and the possibility of extraterrestrial life (ETs) mean the sudden death of the Christian scheme of salvation since, according to the biblical texts, God came in the unique person of Jesus to save this world or kosmos (John 3:16).

In his 1958 essay, “Religion and Rocketry” (originally titled, by the way, “Will We Lose God in Outer Space?”), C. S. Lewis took on the great Cambridge astronomer Fred Hoyle’s claim that the vastness of the universe makes the Christian teaching of Earth's special place in God's work of salvation essentially silly. 

As a scholar of history, Lewis steps back and cools down the argument’s heat:

"When the popular hubbub has subsided and the novelty has been chewed over by real theologians, real scientists and real philosophers, both sides find themselves pretty much where they were before. So it was with Copernican astronomy, with Darwinism, with Biblical Criticism…." C. S. Lewis (or Clive Staples Lewis, aka "St. Clive")

St. Clive then focuses, addressing Hoyle's assertion: this is about the Incarnation:

“If we find ourselves to be one among a million races, scattered through a million spheres, how can we, without absurd arrogance, believe ourselves to be uniquely favored?” C. S. Lewis

What might the existence of an extraterrestrial “hypothetical rational species” mean for Christian message? Lewis, an avid amateur astronomer, who mounted a telescope on the balcony of his bedroom at his home near Oxford, The Kilns, worked out answers more thoroughly in his three-part Space Trilogy. 

There and in this essay, he concluded that a good God could have created life on other planets—no problem with that—but we have no reason to assume that they are fallen. Human beings need redemption because we’ve sinned. This also implies that the great distances of the universe might be an act of grace. 

“I have wondered before now whether the vast astronomical distances may not be God’s quarantine precautions. They prevent the spiritual infection of a fallen species from spreading.” C. S. Lewis

Moving to a close, he refers to Augustine, who pondered the theological implications of the creatures whose existence was bandied about in the fourth and fifth centuries: “satyrs, monopods, and other semi-human creators. He decided it could wait till we knew there were any. So can this” (meaning the existence of ETs).

Lewis then takes this in an unexpected direction. Ultimately, the lesson is not the particulars of any discovery, scientific or otherwise, that would irrevocably validate or invalidate our faith. 

“Christians and their opponents again and again expect that some new discovery will either turn matters of faith into matters of knowledge or else reduce them to patent absurdities. But that has never happened.” C. S. Lewis

And so St. Clive directs us back to trusting in the goodness of our Creator, perhaps looking up at the stars and planets God has made and wondering whether there are other creatures looking at us, and who might be also looking to the gracious God and Creator in faith.

Notes on the Terms "Natural Philosophy" and "Scientist"

When this blog takes up topics of "religion and science," it's fascinating to note that historically these have not been fixed terms. In that light, here are few notes:

Science did not exist as a discrete field for most of American history (and of course for centuries before that). It wasn't until 1834 that the Cambridge University historian and philosopher of science William Whewell coined the term scientist to replace cultivators of science (and the like). More on that in a movement... Until then, Latin was the language of the scholars, and the Latin word for knowledge, scientia, covered a variety of disciplines. In fact, what we generally call "science" today was previously natural philosophy.

This shift in naming had collateral effects. In his brief treatment of the advances in science between Copernicus's ground-breaking work on heliocentricism in 1543 and Newton's iconic Principia Mathematica in 1687, the Johns Hopkins University historian of science Lawrence Principe offered this pithy analysis in his succinct The Scientific Revolution:

"Natural philosophy is closely related to what we familiarly call science today,

Recommended read!

but is broader in scope and intent. The natural philosopher of the Middle Ages or the Scientific Revolution studied the natural world—as modern scientists do—but did so within a wider vision that included theology and metaphysics. The three components of God, man, and nature were never insulated from one another." Philosopher of Science Lawrence Principe

Changing the name also signaled a shift in scope.

As I mentioned above, in 1833 the Rev. William Whewell (1794-1866), English polymath—poet, astronomer, philosopher of science, among other things—coined many hybrid terms, ion, anode, cathode, but especially scientist in the same paragraph in which he coined physicist. Interestingly, Whewell sought to avoid gender connotations of the phrase man of science for at least two reasons: first of all, because of its appearance in a positive review of Mary Somerville’s On the Connexion of the Physical Sciences, and secondly because of “the newness of Somerville’s endeavor—her attempt to connect all the physical sciences with one another.” (See Renee Bergland's Maria Mitchell and the Sexing of the Science.)

This new word scientist also signaled that the practice of what we know today as “natural science” was becoming sufficiently complicated in the 19th century that it needed specific practitioners and that it had therefore drifted away from the kind of common sense science. This is partly the story of the specialization of academic fields that breaks apart the unity of knowledge. At any rate, as a result, the study of nature now became increasingly difficult for those outside this newly coined cadre to evaluate. Non-specialists need not apply! 

Thus scientific specialists begin to dominate the conversation of how, or if, God can be found through science.

How else this change the conversation about science and religion? I'd be interested to know what you think.

Karin Öberg: C. S Lewis is a Voice Worth Listening to

Mainstream science
meets mere Christianity

I want to introduce you to a new-found contributor (at least to me) in the science-faith connection, but first let me say--on a topic related to integrating mainstream science with mere Christianity--that my book, Mere Science and Christian Faith is currently on sale for $4.99 in the Kindle edition. 

Here's a comment from one Amazon reader that offers an introduction:

“I absolutely loved this book. I found it to address most of my concerns involving Christian faith and proven science. The book really takes on so many tough topics that matter in the context of attracting and retaining Christians. This honest reflection truly empowers the church to be more inclusive and inspires 'nones' to see the love of Christ and scientific reason as compatible with one another. Thank you Greg for such a thoughtful book which I am excited to share with others!” Marc, an Amazon reader of Mere Science

Ok, now to Karin Öberg, Professor of Astronomy at Harvard University and leader of the Öberg Astrochemistry Group at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. I encourage you to read her recent interview with BioLogos (the faith-science nonprofit that the head of the National Institutes of Health Francis Collins helped start). 

She was commenting that, after finishing her undergraduate studies at Caltech and beginning her Ph.D. in Leiden, and her path toward Christianity and especially Catholicism. She is a walking rejoinder to those who assert that you must decided between being a top scientist and a Christian. By the way, guess who shows up? C.S. Lewis 

“The next book I ordered was Mere Christianity, which is a dangerous book to read if you are trying to stay agnostic, especially if you’re primed, as I was…. Being well-primed, I got through about half the book before acknowledging that I believed what C.S. Lewis believed.” Karin Öberg, Harvard astronomer

“Believed what C. S. Lewis believed”—let’s let that sink in for a moment...

St. Clive keeps showing up

OK, has that settled? Lewis a non-scientist, has affected scholars of Christians in the sciences to consider faith. Francis Collins, of course, is Exhibit A. (You can find even more about Lewis's influence in this excellent PBS interview with Collins.)

In the interview she was asked about the alleged conflict between faith and science.

Q: Why do you think the idea of a conflict between science and faith persists for many students? 

I don’t think students come into college with an intellectually rigorous reason for why there should be a conflict between science and religion. I think they just pick it up because when they see things about science and religion in media, it’s always a conflict. The Catholic leadership is very clear that there is no conflict between science and religion, yet many Catholic students I talk to think that to be good Catholics, they can’t take seriously some scientific claims. So I think it’s something they’ve subconsciously absorbed through society rather than deeply thought about. Most of the time when I talk to students, we can very quickly remove major barriers. For example, a common one is, how can you accept that there are miracles and at the same time do science? I think this misunderstands both natural laws and miracles." Karin Öberg

I'll close then with one last question on what it means to bring Christian faith to a top-notch secular environment. I find the answer inspiring and don't need additional comment. (Res ipsa loquitur, as the saying goes.)

Q: Is there anything else you’d like to add? 

I feel like there are so many stories of Christians that have had a great struggle in academia and for whom living out their faith has been problematic in different ways. While these people do exist and those struggles are real, I want people to know that this is not always the case. I have had a smooth and joyful journey being very open about my faith at the very secular place that Harvard is. And by being open about my faith, I’ve had many meaningful encounters at Harvard and many good discussions with my colleagues. I think it’s important to have both kinds of stories out there—academia is often painted as a very dark environment for Christians, but it doesn’t have to be." Karin Öberg

C. S. Lewis and ETs

Remember this guy from Spielberg's 1982 movie?

I just finished a review of Olli-Pekka Vainio's Cosmology in Theological Perspective: Understanding Our Place in the Universe (which I quite liked) for the Journal of Inkling Studies, and I thought it might be worth adapting a slice of the review for this blog.

Vainio's book adapts C.S. Lewis's ideas-particularly his work in intellectual history (such as his brilliant posthumous 1964 The Discarded Image)--as he reflects on the theological implications of contemporary cosmology, especially the implications of extraterrestrial life, or ETs. 

Lewis and exoplanets? Why not? Even if, we've discovered over 4000 planets outside our solar system since CSL died in 1962.

Lewis offers to Vainio’s project a serious critique of “chronological snobbery," namely,

what is newest is best and the past essentially is always surpassed by what's most recent. Instead Lewis demonstrates that past thinkers, despite what they didn't know about exoplanets, have a great deal to teach us. In fact, I learned from Vanio that the existence of ETs isn’t something that just happened since the somewhat recent explosion of exoplanets discoveries. Medieval thinkers, who used other names for intelligent life in addition to angels and human beings. (Lewis employed the term longaevi, for example.) As a result, the medieval writers and thought leaders pondered other worlds. Even more, Enlightenment commentators assumed their existence. 

“From the early eighteenth century on, it became widely accepted that life on other planets was at least possible.” Theologian Olli-Pekka Vainio

Lewis made it clear that, when human beings look at the cosmos, they "are standing at the steps of a magnificent cathedral, which welcomes them inside." "The heavens," as it were, "declare the glory of God" (Psalm 19:1). This becomes, in the best sense of the word, a religious experience. And here I imagine CSL at the Kilns, pondering the night sky through the telescope he set on his bedroom's balcony, perhaps reciting the Psalter. 

Or as Vainio phrases it, 

“A proper Christian attitude toward the cosmos is one of awe and wonder—and the desire to understand it more deeply." Theologian Olli-Pekka Vainio