Talking Past Each Other
Essays, Featured — By John Pattison on April 23, 2010 at 7:00 amA few days ago the Writers Collective ran a short, provocative essay by Dylan Peterson about “Inherit the Wind”, Stanley Kramer’s 1960 movie about the Scopes “Monkey” Trial, and the never-ending kerfuffle between evolution and creationism. Dylan, a writer I admire and count as a friend, can wield language like a flamethrower, as in one passage in which he links modern tea partiers to Kramer’s “small town of southern morons”:
["Inherit the Wind"] highlights all of the insanities of the fundamentalist creationist wack-jobs, with ugly housewives picketing against “scientism” in the streets like the great-grandmothers of the tea party movement, and pompous preachers calling hellfire down upon those who believe in evolution.
Incendiary stuff. Later Dylan writes positively about “progress,” a word that makes me cringe because only two other words, “religion” and “nation,” have been used more to justify violence, and our culture distrusts “religion” even as it invokes “progress” and “nation” like a shibboleth.
But, as usual, there is a lot in Dylan’s essay I agree with and can personally relate to, including the dilemma of the young believer who hears one thing in school about the origins of life and something else entirely in church, in Christian books, and at worldview conferences.
The Christian student’s dilemma isn’t an abstract choice between science and religion, but an unnatural schism between her head and her heart, and between her eyes and her heart — between the convictions of things seen and unseen. Dr. Francis Collins wrote about this in his book “The Language of God”: “Young Earth Creationism does even more damage to faith, by demanding that belief in God requires assent to fundamentally flawed claims about the natural world.” Sooner or later, says Collins, young Christians encounter the overwhelming evidence in favor of “an ancient universe and the relatedness of all living things through the process of evolution” and then they are told they must choose between “the faith of their childhood” or “a broad and rigorous body of scientific data, effectively committing intellectual suicide.”
Even if we’ve come to expect discord, Dr. Collins – a world-class geneticist, the former head of the Human Genome Project, the current director of the National Institutes of Health, and an evangelical Christian – is living proof that science and religion can come together in rich harmony.
But first we have to contend with the language barrier. (This is, for me, the clearest parallel between the fundamentalists and the tea partiers, who, as Ron Rosenbaum has shown, tear the English language apart in an effort to sow fear, anger, and resentment.) Take for example the word “theory,” which scientists use to mean something very specific: “A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena,” according to the American Heritage Science Dictionary. For scientists, “theory” isn’t meant to convey uncertainty. A theory is something that has been repeatedly tested and can be used to make predictions about the natural world.
In popular usage, however, “theory” is practically interchangeable with “guess.” Thus, a word that once conveyed information is now used to describe an idea’s relative position on the spectrum between good and bad. So we have two groups talking past each other using the same words, and we frequently have to go to court to figure out who’s right.
At least one other thing is missing from our national conversation on science and religion: humility. The hubris of modern science is evident every time I hear a scientist declaring the unknown unknowable, dismissing mystery, or trying to “seize the tiller of the planet,” as in the current debate about geoengineering.
The arrogance of the religious fundamentalists is usually accompanied by a stunning, even embarrassing, lack of curiosity about the world. This is not a new phenomenon. St. Augustine wrote sixteen hundred years ago:
Usually even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.
Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.
Augustine says the “shame” ultimately falls back on “our sacred writers.” If non-believers hear a Christian “maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe these books and matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learned from experience in the light of reason?”
In other words, willful ignorance of or opposition to plain facts is a detriment to our witness, something all Christians should consider very carefully.
The antidote to fundamentalism is, simply, an ability to say “I don’t know” and, gulp, “I was wrong.” St. Augustine again:
In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it.
Media critic Ken Auletta has written that the dominant bias of the press is not pro-liberal or pro-conservative but pro-conflict. True to form, fundamentalists on both sides of the science-religion divide have hijacked the public discourse. Fundamentalists need enemies, something or someone to define themselves against. Enemies sell books, magazines, and commercial time; enemies generate fund-raising cash.
The irony is that the science fundamentalists and the religion fundamentalists begin by granting their opponent’s premise. They all read Genesis the same way – as prose not poetry, as fact but not necessarily truth. And they all accept the claim of the science fundamentalists that science can tell us everything we need to know about who we are and why we are here. In the end, both sides are answering questions they were never meant to ask.
15 Comments
Good on you. I whole heartedly agree. Let’s use Scripture and science each for how they are intended. Then we will have clearer answers to our fundamental questions.
Francis Collins book radically altered my view of our origins. His ability to communicate a faith based argument from a tempered scientific perspective is like a cool drink of water on a blistering day. My soul is still soaking in and pondering his words.
Thank you for this piece.It makes me feel all the more comfortable in the likes of my fellow Burnsidians.
It’s incredible to me sometimes to read such truth – unchanged, still relevant – coming from someone who lived 1500 years ago.
That being said, I don’t have a huge problem with young-earth creationists. I’m personally ambivalent to young/old earth theories, and just figure either one could make sense and I’m not going to get too caught up in figuring out which one I support. I really think the problem only becomes a problem when one viewpoint starts saying the other is flat-out wrong and undermining Scripture through their stance. Both sides are guilty of doing this – and Collins himself seems to be doing this by pointing fingers at the young-earthers.
The problem isn’t the differing theories, it’s the dogmatic approach taken with the theories.
If you want to dig deeper into this topic, I highly recommend the anthology “Perspectives on an Evolving Creation,” edited by Keith Miller.
Well done.
My personal frustration is that we’ve forgotten that Genesis 1-2 meant something long before Darwin. We’ve flattened out our reading of these chapters to create debate points, and we’ve lost something beautiful, profound, and true in the process.
Yeah, Larry. Well put.
Just like James Garner said in Support Your Local Gunfighter:”You know, when you talk like that you just make me tired all over”. I hate to break up this love fest, but is anyone here willing to face the real problems with this article. It is flawed on so many levels it is hard to believe it is taken seruously. Lets start with the most obvious:
1. I have absolutly grown tired if this new thing of demonizing people to make a point. The idea is that if you call someone a racist or a “small town southern moron” then you marginalize them in order to discount them. I mean really, if they are just “small town southern morons” and we can link them to the Tea Party then obviously they are completly stupid and shouldn’t be taken seriously, and by the way they are also the reason for all the problems in the world, hence dangereous. And it happened in the first paragagraph. You and your friend “Dylan” seem so willing to throw around words like you are talking to the amen corner. Your not. Let me remind you that Paul was not willing to put down even people who were preaching Christ out of “impure motives” as long as Christ was preached. This catagarizing people in order to discount them is just hate filled retoric. And this linking Tea Party people to creationist is both false, misleading, and dishonest.
The person I am most disapointed by here is Larry. I have read your writings, both in letters and in articles, and have always seen you as a voice of moderation, and someone who seems to be respected by those who read you. Yet you seemed to go along with this drival.
2. This so called “schism” between head and heart and science and religion is just as much nonsense. Just because the world chooses to continue its stalwart belief in some view does not make it so. Might I remind you that at the “Institute for Creation Research” there are guys there who, oh my gosh, actually have degrees. Not in homech, but actual science degrees who would not concur with any of this. In several articles written by Tom Bethell in Harpers magazine, who is an evolutionist himself observes that he believes in evolution, but the real evidence is not there. No missing link, nothing. (See Darwin’s Mistake, and Agnostic Evolutionists: The Taxonomic Case Against Darwin”). And guess what no matter how you define “theory” one definition is “a purposed explination who’s status is still CONJECTURE”. Theory is just that, theory.
3. You called out the “arrogance of the religious fundamentalists” but you are equally as guilty of being “arrogant” and I would add “pompus” as well.
4. If you are willing to say that God started the ball rolling, then why is it such a reach to say that he did not do it in six day. Could He or could He not do that? I am not defending a literal six day of creation, but you know what, I was not there, and neither were you, or Dr. Collins or Dylan. Matt.19:4 and other passages seem to tell of a more direct link to creation rather than one that happened over time. Am I to understand that we have “evolved” way beyond the founding fathers, many OT saint who took this literally. Nice to be so “enlightened”.
I am tired of this kind of nonsence. In the end, when we stand before God I seriously doubt he is going to say: “Im sorry, you cannot enter the kingdom of God because of your view of Creation”. Do fundys try to “hijack” arguments, you bet they do, and it gets tiring, but there are MANY things to quible with “fundamentalists” over, but this is not one of them. A fundamentalist is: “a person who is willing to sacrifice a relationship with you based on their view of scripture”. My problem with fundys is that they write you off as a person if they disagree with you, and that is their real sin. It is not their view of creation. I just believe in God and creation because Dylan does (Bob Dylan that is).
Greg,
I read John’s article to be softening the rhetoric that Dylan offered, a step away from the ad homenon arguments. Dylan, in his defense, seems to be reacting anti-intellectualism that he was exposed to.
I also didn’t offer a position on a literal six day creation.
I simply stated that Genesis 1 and 2 were read for thousands of years without Darwin to use as a foil. That’s simply a bald, historical fact.
My fear is that we miss the bigger message of Genesis. To paraphrase N.T. Wright poorly, the point of Genesis 1 is that before people ever built a temple, synagogue, or church that God carefully designed the Earth is as meeting place where God would pour his love out on humanity. That reality establishes our purpose as humans and frames everything.
And its just not being discussed enough because we’re arguing over fossils and carbon dating.
If we agree that God is the creator, then the discussion over a literal v. figurative six days– and whether or not God guided evolution is just a debate about mechanics. Truthfully, it’s a debate that doesn’t interest me at all.
To be clear, I still have not offered my opinion on the subject. I also haven’t made any comments about fundamentalism in either of my replies.
This may or may not help.
Thank you Larry, it does help. And I appreciate your willingness to dialog. I think what troubled me was that it didn’t bother anyone that John went down this rabbit hole. You said that the bigger point about Genesis was missed, and you may be right, but to me personally, his best point was lost in the retoric, and using Dylans quote did not help, just piss me off. I mean really “housewives picketing against science”, when is the last time you saw that. From there it was on to grandmothers at a tea-party rally. All that is not onloy said for effect, but again to demonize and marginalize. And by the way, the “Christian students delimma” over science and creation was interesting, but I saw it from a different angle. I was on the other side of that pounding. I came to Christ when I was in college. As a new Christian, I believed (and still do) in a literal six days. You have no idea what bias looks like until you state that belief in a secular class room. Further, I had a friend who believed that God was the primordial mover, then evolution began. They had no more mercy on him than they had on me. My fear is that sometimes we “buy into” secular ideas not because they are biblical, but because of peer pressure or some sort of scientific “evidence” (which usually is just “theory”) is presented as fact. and it is true on both sides. All you have to do is listen to the Discovery Channel to hear someone say, “50 Million years ago” such and such happened, and that number changes when the next show comes on and the next person says “20 million years ago” such and such happened. No one has a clue.
Larry, I was not making a comment on your view of Genesis (which I would probably agree with), only that the demeaning of other people didn’t bother you (or someone) more. We have different ways of expressing ourselves, but as you said earlier we are probably closer on issues that we might think. In a way what you said in the end: “if we agree that God is creator” to paraphrase is just a debate about “mechanics” is espically true and I wholeheartadly agree. I don’t want to get into that kind of a debate either, seems pointless. Now if someone would do an article tying global warming to fundametalists and tea party people, that wold be something I could get behind. Just joking, thanks again for the dialg hope you have a great Sunday.
Thanks, Greg. And check out the last two paragraphs of John’s piece. He notes that fundamentalism is on both sides of this debate.
Nice piece, John. Especially the quote from Auletta: “the dominant bias of the press is not pro-liberal or pro-conservative but pro-conflict.”
One of the questions that continually comes to mind is whether the press’ bias reflects our society’s approach to differing opinions, or if media outlets are shaping the way we discourse. At the moment, my pessimism about human nature wins out and I think the press is only exacerbating (and profiting from) our inclination to necessitate the pairing of conflict with disagreement. Just look at the comment section of any blog.
Not a single one of you gets it. The thing we all need to learn from this piece is the word “kerfuffle.” My Mac OS X dictionary didn’t even have it.
Dylan’s piece was provocative, but I understand where’s coming from. My patience wears thin when the culture war becomes more important than anything else. After a certain point, I stop caring much about dialogue with my brothers and sisters and get aggravated as I think of the number of people turned completely off to Jesus and Christianity when winning a debate becomes more important than anything else.
10-4.
John (and reader friends) – Thanks so much for taking the time to research, write, and comment upon this extremely high quality and articulate piece.
If the question long circling my mind could be of assistance in furthering this discussion, so be it. If not, I know it will appropriately be ignored. So, here goes.
Suppose, this morning, a potter took pure a lump of clay from the hillside back to his wheel and fashioned a vase. How old is it? Obviously we are left with only two possible answers, the age of the vase or the age of the clay.
Suppose then, we somehow manage to agree that the potter actually “made the clay… out of nothing” en route to making the vase out of that clay. Something entirely unscientific and altogether impossible, yet somehow most people in this discussion seem to adhere to as well.
Still I genuinely wonder… how old is it under this line of thinking?
Michael
Mike,
This is a fascinating question – not surprising, coming from you. I’m going to think about it for a bit and get back to you.
John
John –
Feel free to ignore that question. Of course it has relevance, but like most things, after reading all around this article I see that it has already been adequately addressed and is nothing new to the conversation.
On a completely random side note – anyone find it fascinating that the gagillion copy author of The Shack and the president of Compassion International share the very same story of physical and sexual abuse in the jungles and boarding schools of a missionary childhood? I am guessing this has been addressed on the BWC as well
If not, could be a good article.
Nevens