The Fallacy of Science-Tology - How Science and Religion Share the Same Problem

Sounds like a real zinger for the science-tologists
doesn't it?  Here's why it's not so much.

A friend posted this little zinger on Facebook that is supposed to show us how stupid and narrow-minded religious persons are.  I would challenge this statement. I think religious people may, in fact, be more broad-minded that folk I like to call "science-tologists" - people for whom science is their religion.

First, I recommend to my friend that he should read a ground-breaking book by Thomas Kuhn called "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." Kuhn's work demonstrates the clearly the fallacy of the belief that science is the linear accumulation of data and steady progress of discovery. This caused him a lot of grief from scientists who have a vested interest in presenting themselves as coldly objective observers of the universe, who are not influenced by emotions or preconceived beliefs.

Kuhn, however, shows that scientific progress is impacted by the preconceived notions of scientists; that scientific paradigms can be as rigid as religions some time.  Scientific knowledge proceeds, not smoothly upward toward truth as the public relations for "science" would have you believe, but rather grows in a herky-jerky stairstep fashion. 

This happens because people (scientists are, after all, people) have the tendency to establish a set of beliefs they live by and to resist changing those beliefs; often with considerable energy. Scientific paradigms are usually developed by individual scientists, while they are earning their PhD's. Once one of these guys establishes a paradigm or set of beliefs about their field of study, they tend to stick to that belief set and to defend it throughout their careers. Change happens because scientists test their theories and accumulate data. Finally, one day, in what seems an almost overnight shift in the standard belief paradigm, scientists change their belief systems - often quite dramatically.

After years and years of data which conflicts with the old paradigm accumulates and is rejected by the scientific establishment, suddenly some lucky person, usually a younger person, puts together all the conflicting evidence and demonstrates that the old theory is inadequate, if not totally wrong. When everyone can clearly see that, for instance, disease does not happen because a person has too much bad blood and we need to let it out to give the patient relief.  Once the evidence is overwhelming, then and only then does the "accepted" paradigm shift to a new accepted paradigm. Usually that only happens after a brief and bloody battle between the old school and the young bucks in the field.

 

Galileo

This happened in physics during Newton's time when the old Aristotlean theories about physics fell to Newton's Laws of Motion. It happened in planetary science after the Earth-centric model of the universe fell to the helio-centric model after Copernicus, Galileo and other astronomers collective observations of planetary movements through telescopes and mathematical calculation demonstrated clearly that the sun did not circle the earth after all. This remained the model for some time without change until further observations revealed that even the sun wasn't the center of the universe, but circled around a galactic core. 

And so it proceeded with each generation clinging to its models of science. Biologists' disease theories were shaken by Van Leewenhoek and his microscope, causing a huge kerfuffle which resulted in germ theory and an enormous paradigm shift in biology and medicine.

Einstein finally capped off the evidence that Newtonian physics did not account for everything physicists had observed. They young patent clerk put it all together and presented his ground-breaking work which resulted in a seismic shift in physics from a Newtonian universe to a relativistic one. Since then we've gone on to quantum theory, then jumped to chaos theory and now there's an uncomfortable debate being caused by new evidence that may indicate that there is some sort of intelligent design going on.

The point is that each batch of scientists thinks they know it all and clings to and defends their knowledge base until the whole thing falls in a heap before an accumulation of new evidence to the contrary. Some scientists are never able to make the transition and retire when it gets to upsetting to go on.

Christianity is also a progressive science with each new generation adding to our knowledge base about God. What started out as an informal simple shepherd's religion, became Judaism, a highly structured religion that was a radical departure from animastic and polytheistic worship systems. Judaism finally gave rise to Christianity which morphed into Catholicism, Protestantism and bred hundreds of new Christian denominations - all claiming to be searching for a more clear knowledge and understanding of God.

Like scientists, Christians (especially Christian theologians) seek to deepen their understanding of God. The do this through study of Scripture to be sure, but also through the study of the ancient languages in which the Scriptures were written and the history of the church. In addition, theologians and practicing Christians study science, world history, mathematics, medicine, biology, and pretty much every other field of study you can imagine, looking to achieve a greater understanding of God.

No Christian who is at all honest with him or herself will claim to know it all and never do we claim we already know it all. Scripture tells us much, but also leaves much to discover for ourselves by our own experiments. We learn as much about God and our place in His creation as is possible in our short lifetimes. It is a never-ending study. Most of us spend a half hour to an hour studying every morning to learn more and we attend weekly meetings which last for hours in which we study and discuss what we believe.

It's safe to say that most people who believe in "science" instead of religion probably don't do that. The fact is that the major difference between those whose religion is science and those who believe in God is that Christians do not rule out the existence of God simply because scientists haven't found evidence of Him to their satisfaction. Most science-based religionists (the science-tologists) absolutely do rule out the existence of God before they ever get started on any theory. This seems to me to violate one of the tenets of science, which is not to rule out anything simply because you can't see it, hear it, smell it, feel it or taste it yet.

Does it seem at all logical to you that the greatest intellect in the universe, a pan-dimensional being who exists outside the confines of time and space, would present himself to any random science guy in order to prove His existence to their satisfaction?  It would be like biologists ruling out the existence of germs simply because the germs did not consent to make them big enough to see with the instruments available to scientists at the time and place in which they lived. Scientists, you know those guys that are purely objective once did reject the idea of living creatures too small to see as the source of disease. Heck, doctors didn't even watch their hands before performing surgery until relatively recently, despite evidence that some invisible something was being passed around among their patients that they couldn't see. 

Astronomers ruled out the idea that the Earth moves in space simple because Aristotle said it didn't and he was the guy that wrote the books they all studied to get their doctorates.  Even the pagan astronomers who didn't believe in the Christian God couldn't imagine such a thing as the Earth going round the sun. They came up with all kinds of elaborate models to explain why the planets appeared to move as they did.

So the premise that science is superior to mere religion because it is more honest and objective, doesn't really hold up. While some Christians are quite rigid and dismissive in their belief systems, they aren't alone in being so. Scientists can be just as obtuse when it comes to things outside their belief systems. There are honest scientists and honest Christians who are willing to consider the evidence and advance in their fields of knowledge in a more incremental fashion. Unfortunately, there are just as many, if not more, who, as my grandmother described it, "They're old and set in their beliefs."

As science has become more willing to consider the evidence, science and technology have grown exponentially. As religion has learned more about the object of its worship, society has made huge strides toward improving the lot of man. We've gone from a society that martyrs heretics and burns witches to one that mobilizes vast resources to relieve suffering, feed the hungry, heal the sick and provide for those in need. Who says religious people can't learn anything. A hundred and fifty years ago, some ignorant Christians convinced themselves that committing genocide against Native Americans was somehow God's will.  And I had ancestors on both sides of that deal.

Thankfully, knowledge is progressive and we've all learned something over the centuries in spite of ourselves. We've gone from "Might is Right" to "Might for Right", for the most part, because of the influence of Christianity. It took us a thousand years, but that only proves how stubbornly we all cling to our beliefs, even the ones that are inconsistent with what we say we believe. That includes scientists, politicians and soldiers too; not just churchgoers.

Suppose we stop sniping at each other and see what we can learn from each other. Believe it or not we can, if we just give ourselves permission to do so.

© 2015 by Tom King

Russians Squeeze NASA for More Bucks

(c) 2013 by Tom King

Dragon X Commercial Space Vehicle
successfully docks with Space Station

The price just went up on the cost of getting American astronauts into space.  The price of shipping our astronauts to the space station via Russia's "spam in a can" Soyuz capsule just increased from 62.3 million per seat to 70 million per seat.  

Thanks to this brilliant move, NASA is stuck hitching rides with the Russkies until at least 2017 - a deal which puts American astronauts in the hands of 1970s Russian technology in order to reach the space station. 

And the left is, of course, still blaming it on George Bush.

 I had intended to make some comment about how the Obama Administration's new goals for NASA had switched from space exploration to making Muslim nations feel good about themselves and their contribution to science, but let's let the president's choice for NASA head honcho speak for himself:




Note that none of the three initiatives the president charged Bolden with has anything to do directly with space exploration. It's all about political agenda.  The first thing NASA did under the Obama Administration in 2009 was cut the Orion crew size and delay the project for years, guaranteeing we continue to rely on the Russians to get our guys into space for close to a decade.

Notice that the evil commercial sector which is busily "lining its pockets", has already launched freight carrying space vehicles that cost NASA half what it's own rockets cost, delivering bigger and bigger payloads.  The Dragon X manned capsule will be ready long before Orion is. Space planes and inflatable hotels in space are already in the offing. 




And care to guess which president pushed hardest for NASA to open the doors to commercial space flight?

Meanwhile Obama's NASA will be busily "inspiring" children to "get into" science rather like they get into video games and rap music.  And the boss, Director Bolden, will be wandering around the middle east looking for ways to make the Muslims feel good about their contributions to science (his words).

Don't get me wrong. I do appreciate Arab contributions to science like unpronounceable names for constellation and that whole Arabic numerals thing.  Technically though they should be called "Hindu-Arabic numerals" because the Persians and Arabs borrowed them from their Hindu inventors (rather before any of your actual Arabs and Persians actually became your actual Muslims).  We are grateful that the Arabs, by then Muslim, passed Arab numerals along to the west no matter that they were misnamed.

Westerners grabbed onto the new number system instantly - probably because they were stuck trying to multiply CMLXXXVII times MDCLXXVIII  (the answer has something like 1,656 "M's" in it).  So let me formally thank the Middle East for 0 through 9.  Right handy it's been all in all. Without it we'd have had a right job of it to figure out which shuttle mission was STS-CXXXV.  And think of all the money NASA has saved on hiring the guys that paint the lettering on the spaceships, not to mention the cranes, the vehicle assembly building and the catering trucks. 859 takes a lot less paint than does DCCCLIX. 

At the rate things are going, I fully expect the greedy capitalists to be back on the moon long before NASA can figure out which Middle-Eastern leader most needs to be reassured that Islam has contributed to "science".  I'm sure, however, that millions of children will be "inspired" to "go into" science by NASA's new propaganda mission.  When NASA finally finds its way to Mars, they'll be able to land their one way space pod full of "inspired" kids in the parking lot of a Martian McDonald's right between a Ford orbital shuttle and a BMW interplanetary cruiser. 

Good plan, Big "O".  Really great plan.

I'm just saying.

Tom King

* Don't get me wrong. I think the Arabic numeral system was a peachy idea, but that predated Islam and actually they should be called Hindu-Arabic numerals because the whole idea originally came from India and was borrowed by the Arabs who lent it to people whose brains were fried from trying to multiply MCLXXXVII times MDCLXXVIII. 

I Defend a Liberal - See I Can Be Fair and Balanced!

Deborah Tannen

(c) 2011 by Tom King

I just read “Aspects of Conversational Style-Linguistic Versus Behavioral Analysis” by Genae A. Hall, Regional Center of the East Bay, Oakland, CA. Hall likes B.F. Skinner’s behavioral analysis for describing problems with conversational style over the linguistic analysis approach used by Deborah Tannen in her books That's Not What I Meant (1986) and You Just Don't Understand (1990). You might have heard of Tannen. She’s written several other New York Times bestsellers and has appeared on Oprah. She blogs on the Huffington Post and writes for Politico, so politically, I have no stake in defending her at all. Genae Hall, you’ve probably never heard of unless you’re a behavioral psychologist in California somewhere. She may lead a Tea Party group for all I know, but I have a problem with her article. This is not about anyone's politics. It’s about scientific elitism.


Hall’s paper tells you right off where she stands with regard to Tannen, using, if I may employ linguistic analysis here, prejudicial words and sentence constructions like “…the linguist Deborah Tannen purports to explain how people exhibit different ‘conversation styles’” and “Judging from the popularity of Tannen's books, conversational style is an important topic to many people and the linguistic terms and concepts used in the analysis have been at least somewhat effective in describing this subject matter.” The underlining is mine. Ironically, for a paper purporting to explain how behavioral analysis is a better method for analyzing conversational style than is linguistic analysis, the whole thing gives off a metamessage (Tannen's very useful term) reeking of disdain for Tannen’s success in helping her readers improve their conversation styles.

To many academics like Hall, popularity is the kiss of death for any serious scientist’s work. Hall apparently has produced no popular works, though her name appears on many scientific papers on behavioral analysis and in related fields. That she dislikes Tannen’s use of linguistic terms like “metamessages” and “frames” which have at least some connection to ordinary reader experience is telling. Hall prefers instead to use more esoteric behavioral psychology terms like autoclit, pure and impure tacts, mands and interverbals to describe how we communicate and miscommunicate.

Ultimately the paper serves as little more than another example of a scientist arguing in support of describing things using complex terms in a way that ordinary people will have no clue what you are talking about. While she begrudgingly admits that Tannen’s book may have actually helped some ordinary folk solve their communication problems and may even have saved some marriages, she dismisses such help as largely accidental, stating, “Although Tannen's linguistic analyses have facilitated effective practical action to a certain extent, they may have done so in spite of the terminology used, rather than because of it."

Yeah, I'm sure it would have been much better if Tannen had buried her readers in incomprehensible psychological jargon. (Note: The metamessage in that last sentence was "No it wouldn't be." using sarcasm as the linguistic frame. You recognize sarcasm for what it is and therefore know what I really mean.  And you can understand what I just said even without a graduate degree in applied behavioral science).

Hall makes a telling statement just before calling Tannen's success second-rate, stating in the article that, “When the controlling variables for behavior are clearly specified, there is a greater likelihood that those variables can be manipulated to change behavior.”  By "clearly specified", she means couched in obscure scientific terms that only really smart, educated people can understand.

Once again, the behaviorist's belief that we are but the product of our cumulative experiences and that free will is an illusion shines through. The article is a virtual pooh-poohing of the idea that the non-scientist might be able to work out his or her own communication problems by reading a book from Barnes & Noble rather than by submitting themselves to the external brain power of the Ph.D. class, who would then “manipulate” them into changing their behavior.

One has to wonder whether Hall’s argument against Tannen’s approach to fixing problems in human communication has less to do with the approach being based on linguistics than it does with the fact that Tannen sold a lot of books to people and went on Oprah. And now many of those folks who read Tannen's book may decide not to go submit themselves to a behavioral psychologist to have their behavior manipulated? (A frightening idea to someone who charges outpatients $100 an hour and has a clinic to fill up.)

Magicians always hate it when someone explains their tricks so that ordinary folk can perform them too.

Tom

Is Science Bad for Your Faith - Part 3

Science Affirms Our Faith

If you have a daily relationship with God, science makes perfect sense. A recent article on "dark energy" jumped out at me one day. I saw clear as day the thumbprint of God upon the universe. The astronomers had a rather different interpretation. I think they were simply wrong, that’s all.


Science may get the interpretation wrong because so many scientists dismiss the very idea of God out of hand, but the raw data leads inevitably to the creator. Misinterpretation doesn't make science evil. The search for truth, even if your mind is prejudiced against it, can only lead to God, however reluctant the truth-seeker may be to bump into Him.


Recent discoveries in psychiatry, neurology and psychology have only affirmed my belief that Jesus knew what he was doing when he set up the Christian church as he did when he laid down the laws for the nation of Israel. With the Jews, God sought to make an independent people out of a nation of slaves. He succeeded in spite of their own efforts to thwart their education. What God taught the nation of Israel has stuck with them even to this very day. I can’t think of a nation or culture less likely to accept slavery than the Jewish people.


The Christian church was set up to facilitate the writing of God's law upon our hearts and to prepare the world for His coming. Christianity, as a result, is the most effective tool for promoting mental health in the history of the world. Modern psychology has been playing catch up the past few decades, learning how to heal mental illness using therapy techniques Christ imparted to his church in its very structure. Study (gathering information about your condition), prayer (positive affirmations/telling your troubles to someone sympathetic) and sharing (group therapy work) are the three cornerstones of the Christian life. These three key elements of the Christian life mimic the most effective methods used by therapists in healing psychological disorders, changing behavior and disciplining the mind to free itself from addiction (for what else is being controlled by “sin” than an addiction to a behavior). We have only lately discovered how this process taps into the very structure of the human brain to retrain the mind. When God told us he would write his law upon our hearts, He meant it in a literal sense. The study/pray/share technique of Christian living is your part in the healing process as is taking your meds, showing up for therapy and doing the exercise you’re given by the therapist is essential to psychotherapy.


Christians have the added advantage of a “therapist” who knows us better than we know ourselves and who busily sets up our environment to provide therapeutic support for our healing. “All things work together for good” “Whom He loves, He chastens”.


God has given us doctors to help with the physical healing. Sometimes He takes a hand in directly healing us, if He sees we don’t need a particular “thorn in the side”.



Notice that Jesus often first 'healed' people of the very sins that had long held them in bondage. He healed folks with obvious mental disorders (or whatever you want to call demon-possession). He healed the damage first, then helped them pick themselves up by the bootstraps. The second half of the process—the change of heart—can take a lifetime. Look at the struggles the disciples had overcoming their old addiction to sinful habits.


Let us not forget that the Christian church is a triage center, emergency room and hospital for sinners, not a museum for magically created saints. The church was founded by the very one who designed the human mind in the first place. He, if anyone, would know how to treat the damage that can be done to the mind. The Psalmist points out that God “…knows our frame. He knows that we are dust.” Makes sense that he would design his church to optimally support the psychological healing that must take place in folks recovering from the ravages of sin.


We should pay particularly close attention to how the designer told us we ought to run the place. He knows, after all, something about what he is doing. And some of us should remember that in this “hospital” we are doctors and nurses, not drill instructors and lecturers.

My opinion, what's yours?

Tom

Is Science Bad for Your Faith - Part 2

Therapeutic Christianity

Magic Christians insist that all salvation results in healing, wealth, happiness and joy. If that’s not happening, you must be doing something wrong because obviously God can be letting you suffer all this if you’re a good person. Mental illness, the argument goes, is just an excuse for not having prayed hard enough or said the right combination of words. If mental illness exists, then the Magic Christian’s idea that the soul exists separately from the body gets knocked back on its pins. If mental illness exists, then how in the world can God hold you accountable for sin (and more importantly, how can the preacher stand up and frighten you into submission by telling you God will burn you forever in hell). If your brain can be damaged and cause you not to be able to think properly, then how can God (and Mrs. Bertha Betterthanu) judge you properly.

Well, if the soul is linked inextricably with the human machinery in which it is housed, all it means is that God has a rather more complex job of redemption to do. Fortunately, I think He’s up to it. Since He can tell you how many hairs are on your head, it could be easily supposed that God knows what he’s doing when dealing with folks damaged by mental illness and that he judges with fairness and mercy and keeps your limitations in mind.



In the past 3 decades, scientists have learned more about the human mind than we have in the whole long history of the world. During my graduate studies in psychology and in my long experience in the mental health field, I have worked with mental illness in a wide variety of forms and studied the cause and effects of mental disorders on their victims.


The idea that a person with a mental illness can just buck up, make some right choices for a change and be healed is ludicrous. Even the Apostle Paul made no such claims for the out and out sinner. He complained in his letter to the Romans that he, himself, did things that he did not want to do and what he wanted to do, he often did not do. Paul recognized that the Christian walk was a process of healing that occurs over time and with the help of God. Paul also told us he bore a thorn in the flesh that God had chosen to let him live with. We don't know what it was, but Paul struggled with it daily. If there were magic words that force healing to happen, surely if anyone knew them it was the Apostle Paul.


We often treat Christianity as though it were some sort of magical practice—that if we could say the right words or pray the right prayer, the world would order itself to our will. Jesus said if we had faith, we could move mountains. He never said we mightn't need a bulldozer or two to get the job done.

Is Science Bad for Your Faith - Part 1

Science and the "Magic Christian"

You read a lot of criticism out there lately from the folks I call “Magic” Christians. Many seem to find science an unmitigated tool of the devil. Tools, whether they are used by the Devil or by God, are simply tools. A sword can kill a foe or clear a path depending on who is wielding it.

Magic Christians believe that words have power in them all by themselves. This is an ancient and wrong-headed belief. It comes from the ancient necromancers, wizards and witches who once used superstition and fear of their imagined “powers” and incantations to control and subdue the ignorant. Complete balderdash!

Magic did not exist then, nor does it exist now.

This does not mean there are not supernatural things which happen. Supernatural only means we don't understand them; that the events experienced as supernatural are above our understanding of nature.The supernatural does not, happen as a result of incantations, nose twitches or magic wants, however much one might enjoy the Harry Potter movies.

Only God has the power to create. Only He can perform acts which might seem “magical” to us who have no idea how to do those things, but which God can do without trouble because his nature is far different than ours and his capabilities, while of a higher order than ours, obey the same laws of physics no less than we obey the law of gravity. Because we have not yet discovered all of the laws of physics is immaterial. Because we do not understand how a thing is done does not mean it does not obey the laws God set down for the universe. Yes, the devil can do some things we cannot understand which could be considered supernatural, but it is only because he yet retains some capabilities leftover from his days as head angel.  What is doable for angels may not be doable for us.  Paul speaks of angels existing on a higher plane, whatever that may be.  It does not make the behavior of devils magic by any means. They may only do what they are allowed by their nature.  I know.  I have seen their limitations.  That's a story for another weblog, though.


As one physicist so succinctly put it, “God does not play dice with the universe.”

Generations of scientists that have since followed him have tried to disprove that statement with explorations into chaos theory and quantum mechanics, but the data they have collected show that there is, in fact, an order to the universe down to the subatomic level. One physicist made the observation that the universe, when it was formed, “….looked like it knew we were coming.”

God is the creator of all that is studied in science. I find that the more science discovers, the stronger my faith becomes in God the Creator. If you have a thorough understanding of scripture (and not just the parts that suit your theories of how things work), you will find the Bible has anticipated scientific discoveries by centuries.

Magic Christians particularly have problems with psychology, psychiatry and other fields that study of the human brain. It’s as though they fear brain science is going to crack open people’s heads and find there is no soul within. One of the hazards of believing that inside you is some sort of “holy gas” that is the “real you” and can never die, is that this belief has relatively little basis in science.

What we know so far, says that the body, the brain and whatever spark kicks off life work together to house whomever we are. Without any one of these parts, we, apparently, cease to exist. Scripture concurs with science on this one. “The dead know not anything,” says Ecclesiasties 9:5. The first great lie was when the Devil told Eve, “Thou shalt not surely die.” He’s gone on telling that lie for millennia. You don’t really die goes the pagan myth. You just float up out of your body like some cloud of gas and go somewhere else.

But, the Magic Christian argues, if mental illness exists, then what happens to sin and redemption (and the fear of eternal punishment – a favorite church tool for keeping the troops in line)? They have recently launched attacks on organizations like AA because AA doesn’t specify that you look to “God” as understood by their particular brand of Christianity. They recommend whatever higher power you can imagine. The Magic Christians criticize AA for not sending their members to the “right” God and lay AA’s sins at the door of psychology and psychiatry. They launch blistering attacks on the whole idea of addictions and mental illness, preferring to describe behavioral and emotional disorders as “sin” which can be cured simply by baptism, saying the right words, rubbing the right prayer cloth or donating to the right preacher. Meanwhile AA goes right on helping drunks escape their addiction.

It's true that AA doesn't specify a higher power to trust. They are, after all, only a shadow of what the church at its best should be. AA simply asks you to look up, above and beyond yourselves. Only God is up there. If you find anything else, it's because you weren't looking up.

To be continued….