What is Ben Stein’s beef? In his documentary, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”, you begin to realize from the opening shots at the Berlin Wall, that the main issue in the movie is freedom; freedom to pursue a line of thinking.
Anyone familiar with the literature of Intelligent Design knows that its proponents complain that it is misunderstood; that it’s opponents do not attempt to consider it’s arguments fairly and honestly; and that it is falsely mischaracterized in the media.
The false mischaracterization by the media is probably true since ID is already treated as a punch line on the late night talk shows and Saturday Night Live.
Of course, opponents of Intelligent Design will mock the complaints of ID proponents and assert that ID just, simply, does not qualify as real science. They will suggest that it is not a line of thinking that should be pursued because it is not worth pursuing.
That’s where the idea of freedom comes in. Stein asserts that the freedom to follow these thoughts should be allowed, even if you don’t like the implications of the thoughts. In human history there have always been those—and there always will be those—who are all the more motivated to investigate ideas when they have been told that they are not allowed to do so.
“Expelled” introduces audiences to some of the people in the academic world who made the mistake of merely throwing the idea of ID on the table for discussion and were punished for doing so. One of the more well known of these persons is Richard von Sternberg who is a biologist with two PhDs and was working, at the time, for the Smithsonian Institute. The irony is that von Sternberg, as an evolutionary biologist wasn’t even promoting Intelligent Design, but as the editor of a journal called the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, he merely allowed a peer reviewed paper by, credentialed scientist, Stephen Meyers to be published in the journal.
The article in question cast doubt on whether Darwinian evolution can truly explain the monumental question of genetic information—it’s a pretty interesting argument, by the way, for anyone who is willing to give it honest consideration—and goes on to suggest that, perhaps, some type of intelligence had to have played a role. Since intelligence can be strongly and persuasively argued to be a necessary requirement for the presence of “information” and since intelligence has even been put forth as an explanation by evolutionists in the form of the “panspermia hypothesis” it does not seem like the suggestion of intelligent causation should have been that upsetting of a thought. However, von Sternberg was fired for allowing such a frightening concept to be published in the journal.
Shouldn’t a scientist, be allowed to suggest a hypothesis, even what someone might consider to be an outlandish hypothesis? Sometimes it is the hypothesis that is least expected that turns out to be true. This represents the issue of freedom that Stein is raising with his film.
“Expelled” looks at ID’s fight in the academic world, in the media, and even in the courts. One of the salient points the movie makes is that science questions should not be determined in courtrooms. Of course, this will lead to a very robust discussion of “what constitutes science?” and “what are proper scientific pursuits?” and “who gets to decide what science is, then?” If you read philosophers of science, you discover that the answer to those questions are not as simple and obvious as you might expect. But it does seem reasonable to say that the answers to those questions should not be determined by a court of law.
A side note? Scientists, believe it or not, are not the best equipped to answer the question “what is science?” That is a philosophical question which most scientists are, actually, not trained to answer. It is a question that is studied and answered best by philosophers of science.
Although “Expelled” presents comments from scientists who oppose Intelligent Design, it is fair to say that it is defending one side of an argument. But since it is the side of the argument that is shut down by those who are supposed to be fair and impartial and free-thinking and open to debate, it’s the side of the argument that deserves to be heard.
Dan Marler
Oak Lawn, IL 60453
www.VisitUsOnline.org
Monday, April 28, 2008
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Tolerance Does Not Mean Agreement
Now more than ever, the call to tolerance is heard. As well it should be. But I think it’s fair to ask: What does it mean to be tolerant? You see, our culture has been very effective at redefining the actual meaning of tolerance. Many people have come to believe that tolerance means everybody will agree with each other and everyone will see each other’s viewpoint as equally correct.
Philosophy professor Paul Chamberlain says, “In contemporary North American culture, tolerance has come to be virtually synonymous with agreement.” He goes on, “The way to be tolerant toward an idea or practice is to agree with it, or better yet to affirm it, possibly even to celebrate it.” We tend to think that is tolerance.
By this definition of tolerance, if you voice disagreement with a view, you are labeled intolerant. And, of course, no one wants to be labeled as intolerant because tolerance is such a highly valued virtue in our culture. Furthermore, to be intolerant is on a par with being a bigot or, worse yet, a Bible-believing-fundamentalist. That’s the charge that really causes some to run from the room sobbing and shaking their heads in vigorous denial.
Of course, the person who calls someone “intolerant” usually fails to notice the inherent contradiction of the action because to call someone intolerant involves a judgment which, by society’s incorrect, but popularly held, definition of tolerance renders the accuser guilty of being intolerant, as well.
But our commonly held definition of tolerance is actually incorrect. We are operating with an improper understanding of the word. Scholar Paul Copan writes, “Contrary to popular definitions, true tolerance means ‘putting up with error’—not ‘being accepting of all views.’”
Tolerance, by definition, requires disagreement. Some of us may require a moment to allow the very idea to sink in. But think about it: if you agree with someone’s position, there is no need for tolerance. Tolerance is only necessary when people disagree on a matter. You are only called to tolerate what I’m writing here if you disagree with me—as shocking as that is for me to imagine.
Often, those who oppose the truth do so by redefining or misusing terms. If terms are redefined, one can throw a smoke screen on the real issues at the heart of a matter. I believe this has happened with the concept of tolerance. We have been taught that it means “everybody is always right”. But of course, that very idea involves a logical contradiction.
We have been taught that tolerance means “I agree with your position no matter what it is.” But to attempt to hold that position will ultimately be dishonest and, at some point or another, very uncomfortable.
Tolerance really means: “I disagree with you, but I will respect you, and I will respect your right to your position.” On many delicate issues that understanding of tolerance will be plenty to keep us challenged.
Since real tolerance requires disagreement, perhaps one of the more vital questions is: Can we disagree and yet do so humbly, extending respect and grace toward each other? Let’s hope so.
Dan Marler
First Church of God
Oak Lawn, IL
www.VisitUsOnline.org
Philosophy professor Paul Chamberlain says, “In contemporary North American culture, tolerance has come to be virtually synonymous with agreement.” He goes on, “The way to be tolerant toward an idea or practice is to agree with it, or better yet to affirm it, possibly even to celebrate it.” We tend to think that is tolerance.
By this definition of tolerance, if you voice disagreement with a view, you are labeled intolerant. And, of course, no one wants to be labeled as intolerant because tolerance is such a highly valued virtue in our culture. Furthermore, to be intolerant is on a par with being a bigot or, worse yet, a Bible-believing-fundamentalist. That’s the charge that really causes some to run from the room sobbing and shaking their heads in vigorous denial.
Of course, the person who calls someone “intolerant” usually fails to notice the inherent contradiction of the action because to call someone intolerant involves a judgment which, by society’s incorrect, but popularly held, definition of tolerance renders the accuser guilty of being intolerant, as well.
But our commonly held definition of tolerance is actually incorrect. We are operating with an improper understanding of the word. Scholar Paul Copan writes, “Contrary to popular definitions, true tolerance means ‘putting up with error’—not ‘being accepting of all views.’”
Tolerance, by definition, requires disagreement. Some of us may require a moment to allow the very idea to sink in. But think about it: if you agree with someone’s position, there is no need for tolerance. Tolerance is only necessary when people disagree on a matter. You are only called to tolerate what I’m writing here if you disagree with me—as shocking as that is for me to imagine.
Often, those who oppose the truth do so by redefining or misusing terms. If terms are redefined, one can throw a smoke screen on the real issues at the heart of a matter. I believe this has happened with the concept of tolerance. We have been taught that it means “everybody is always right”. But of course, that very idea involves a logical contradiction.
We have been taught that tolerance means “I agree with your position no matter what it is.” But to attempt to hold that position will ultimately be dishonest and, at some point or another, very uncomfortable.
Tolerance really means: “I disagree with you, but I will respect you, and I will respect your right to your position.” On many delicate issues that understanding of tolerance will be plenty to keep us challenged.
Since real tolerance requires disagreement, perhaps one of the more vital questions is: Can we disagree and yet do so humbly, extending respect and grace toward each other? Let’s hope so.
Dan Marler
First Church of God
Oak Lawn, IL
www.VisitUsOnline.org
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Review of "The Reason For God"
Timothy Keller has been pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church, in Manhattan, for nearly 20 years. In that time, he has heard many questions and comments about the Christian faith from young, hip, New York City urbanites. Keller routinely holds Q&A sessions following the services at the church and, so, he has fielded a lot of genuine queries along the way. “The Reason For God” poses a number of these questions and comments, along with Keller’s response.
Many of the objections to Christianity are what you would expect to hear. For example:
There can’t be just one true religion.
How could a good God allow suffering?
Christianity is a straightjacket.
The church is responsible for so much injustice.
How can a loving God send people to hell?
Science has disproved Christianity.
You can’t take the Bible literally.
The response to these challenges comprises the first half of the book. In “part 2” of the book, Keller presents some of the basic Christian doctrines, still maintaining a tone of explanation and defense of the faith.
The jacket flap of the book states that Keller “explain[s] how faith in a Christian God is a soundly rational belief, held by thoughtful people of intellectual integrity”. I found that to be true and it comes across in the book.
Many of Keller’s answers to the objections to Christianity are not particularly original—since the field of apologetics has a long and much-pondered history. However, Keller presents some great insights. For example, explaining how Christianity is not the great enemy of pluralism and multiculturalism, Keller writes, “Christianity has been more adaptive (and maybe less destructive) of diverse cultures than secularism and many other worldviews.”
He goes on to explain, “The pattern of Christian expansion differs from that of every other world religion. The center and majority of Islam’s population is still in the place of its origin—the Middle East. The original lands that have been the demographic centers of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism have remained so. By contrast, Christianity was first dominated by Hellenists and centered in the Mediterranean. Later the faith was received by the barbarians of Northern Europe and Christianity came to be dominated by western Europeans and then North Americans. Today most Christians in the world live in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. Christianity soon will be centered in the southern and eastern hemispheres.”
What Keller writes is true and it’s an important insight. It speaks powerfully to the adaptability of Christianity. It also points out a truly unique and extraordinary quality of Christianity.
The person that comes through in “The Reason for God” is smart and thoughtful. He is a good communicator and his ideas are cogent, sound and helpful.
Dan Marler
First Church of God
Oak Lawn, IL
http://www.visitusonline.org/
Many of the objections to Christianity are what you would expect to hear. For example:
There can’t be just one true religion.
How could a good God allow suffering?
Christianity is a straightjacket.
The church is responsible for so much injustice.
How can a loving God send people to hell?
Science has disproved Christianity.
You can’t take the Bible literally.
The response to these challenges comprises the first half of the book. In “part 2” of the book, Keller presents some of the basic Christian doctrines, still maintaining a tone of explanation and defense of the faith.
The jacket flap of the book states that Keller “explain[s] how faith in a Christian God is a soundly rational belief, held by thoughtful people of intellectual integrity”. I found that to be true and it comes across in the book.
Many of Keller’s answers to the objections to Christianity are not particularly original—since the field of apologetics has a long and much-pondered history. However, Keller presents some great insights. For example, explaining how Christianity is not the great enemy of pluralism and multiculturalism, Keller writes, “Christianity has been more adaptive (and maybe less destructive) of diverse cultures than secularism and many other worldviews.”
He goes on to explain, “The pattern of Christian expansion differs from that of every other world religion. The center and majority of Islam’s population is still in the place of its origin—the Middle East. The original lands that have been the demographic centers of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism have remained so. By contrast, Christianity was first dominated by Hellenists and centered in the Mediterranean. Later the faith was received by the barbarians of Northern Europe and Christianity came to be dominated by western Europeans and then North Americans. Today most Christians in the world live in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. Christianity soon will be centered in the southern and eastern hemispheres.”
What Keller writes is true and it’s an important insight. It speaks powerfully to the adaptability of Christianity. It also points out a truly unique and extraordinary quality of Christianity.
The person that comes through in “The Reason for God” is smart and thoughtful. He is a good communicator and his ideas are cogent, sound and helpful.
Dan Marler
First Church of God
Oak Lawn, IL
http://www.visitusonline.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)