Some Thoughts on the March for Science

Faith & Science Conversation
49

Sorry Steve, but it doesn’t seem we know each other. It’s a bit difficult to comprehend if you really think science is the better for understanding “God’s creation” than theology or not. Could you please clarify your intended meaning? For all I know you might’ve thought it bold that I wrote, “assuming it comes from a Christian theist!” with exclaiming point. So let’s not get ahead of each other with communications nuances with someone we just met. O.k.?

If you’ll step to that place, I can then more easily respect your own particular sciences’ specialteese of the natural world while also offering potential teaching moments to you, humbly as a man who admits that scientific knowledge isn’t the limit of all of the various kinds of knowledge (or other sorts of psycho-somatic levels) available. You do admit that too, right? Or is that too science-philosophical already?

In my view, while you write in public with your name known and attached, or at least mentioned openly, whereas I choose to write as anonymous (except for site admin, to a limited degree), we both seek a common goal or at least aim to approach a common horizon just by being her, whereas I’m not sure you see what that is anymore, given age & position & nation-state (in case you couldn’t guess, I am not an “American”), as prestigious as it may look institutionally from most places and many peoples in the world, it’s what matters most personally inside. I.e. even to suggest that science is better than theology for understanding God’s Creation.

Otherwise, how could I trust you Prof. Dr. Steve that you were’nt somehow trying to sabotague a conversation with a new friendly adversary by asking a simple question, rather than offering a warmer welcome? Let us hone it now together if possible to an agreed shape and size to start: is science “good, better, best” at understanding God’s (or the god’s’, depending how open, panentheistic or pantheistic one goes?) Creation when it compares with/to/also theology? Is that the right or wrong language even to start to walk towards that ‘convergence’ (that’s not something like E.O.’s consilience, is it?) you are alluding to that “theology” is supposed to strive to attain?

Can you agree to treat me on fair turf if we start with such type questions, Steve? Are we on a justice-seeking global balance between you and I, the folks here and the Lord? Not afraid to go to the spot and see what we find there?

Al-Khalil

“As far as the proposition of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” – Einstein

50

As I suggested previously, my answer depends on what you mean by the question – which is why I asked you to clarify. What understanding of God’s creation do you think theology provides?[quote=“Al-Khalil, post:49, topic:35644”]
Let us hone it now together if possible to an agreed shape and size to start: is science “good, better, best” at understanding God’s (or the god’s’, depending how open, panentheistic or pantheistic one goes?) Creation when it compares with/to/also theology?
[/quote]
That depends on what it is you’re trying to understand. If you’re asking about our relationship to God as our creator, about how we should treat each other as fellow-creatures, about how we should treat the rest of creation, about God’s intentions for all of creation, then theology is the only game in town. Science does not answer that kind of question. At best, it might provide some useful information to theology.

On the other hand, if you are asking questions about the physical working of our physical universe, then no, I don’t think theology has a good track record compared to empirical science. The earth really isn’t a few thousand years old, species really do change, the sun and planets do not circle the earth. Theology did score at least a partial win with its claim that the universe had a beginning – but it took scientific evidence to show that it had.

2 Likes
51
"Theology did score at least a partial win with its claim that the universe had a beginning -- but it took scientific evidence to show that it had."

So, is the message: “Theologians should thank God for science, whereas scientists have no similar such need”? If so, that would come across as a rather over-proud of science > theology mindset.

A ‘win’? What a ‘win’ counts for among those who see a zero sum game (therefore scientism & related materialist ideologies ‘lost’) isn’t necessarily the path I’d suggest taking in this conversation. Otherwise it soon looks like theology offers no ‘evidence’ of God’s Creation at all, at least not in the narrow empirical sense Steve is requesting from a perspective that strictly regards physicality.

Isn’t that a bit like asking theologians to ‘evolve’ a better understanding of God’s Creation by aping scientific methods rather than working using theological methods? And the sadness here is mainly a lack of ‘religious convergence’?

All I was looking for was BioLogos acknowledgement that the ‘best’ claim president Haarsma made re: science was ill-spoken and misplaced. At least one person has doubled-down in defence of Science. I suspect others see that the simple rebuke was enough, so I should leave it at that.

“Theology is our best shot at understanding God’s creation.” - New BioLogos mantra? ; )

52

I believe the Roman Catholic position on science is the most coherent:

Nothing in science will be found to contradict sound religion. But religion cannot replace sound science.

1 Like
53

I’m curious, @Al-Khalil, would you agree with the statement that “science is our best shot at understanding God’s physical creation”? Clearly, there are limitations to scientific knowledge, but I think the intent of the statement is limited to that physical creation, and is not referring to all of the many critical areas in which science is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to apply.

3 Likes
54

Thanks for understanding Curtis Henderson. Yes, I would agree with that statement as limiting it to “God’s physical creation” makes an important distinction. It is more specific than BioLogos President’s one & more acceptable. Thank you for seeing an alternative middle.

Of course, I’d be pleased to see Steve’s list of “all of the many critical areas in which science is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to apply”. Once one starts with “God’s Creation,” the topic already involves religion/theology to at least some degree, such that Steve’s atheist colleagues would never allow him to say with them what he wrote here, when he acknowledged there is space where “theology is the only game in town.”

Thus, physical science isn’t hard difficult, but hard resistant to including theology in collaborative discourse, which to their credit BioLogos seeks. Thus, such correction to communication as I made in this thread, while really quite easy to make and should cause little fuss, seem to carry some kind of heavy resistance, especially for Christians who were once YECs themselves and have converted away from YEC, now think it is somehow giving ammunition to YECs.

Bottom line, if Science isn’t though of as ‘good, better, best’ instead it is seen openly amongst us that theology shares common territory in our understanding of God’s Creation. That is all I am asking for instead of Deborah Haarsma’s imbalanced statement. Is it so difficult to admit it was imbalanced and correct it … like a Samaritan woman at a well?

55

No. Did you not read the rest of my message?[quote=“Al-Khalil, post:51, topic:35644”]
A ‘win’? What a ‘win’ counts for among those who see a zero sum game (therefore scientism & related materialist ideologies ‘lost’) isn’t necessarily the path I’d suggest taking in this conversation.
[/quote]
It isn’t a path I’d suggest taking in this conversation either. So why are you taking that path?[quote=“Al-Khalil, post:51, topic:35644”]
Isn’t that a bit like asking theologians to ‘evolve’ a better understanding of God’s Creation by aping scientific methods rather than working using theological methods? And the sadness here is mainly a lack of ‘religious convergence’?
[/quote]
I haven’t asked theologians to do anything. I’ve been trying to get you to make some statement of what you meant when you said that theology was our best shot at understanding God’s creation. For some reason, you have refused to clarify what you meant. What understanding do you think theology has provided about God’s creation?

56

Since that is pretty much exactly what I said in my response to you above, I am at a loss to know why this version merits your favor while my version merits your attack. [quote=“Al-Khalil, post:54, topic:35644”]
Of course, I’d be pleased to see Steve’s list of “all of the many critical areas in which science is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to apply”.
[/quote]
Whom are you quoting? [quote=“Al-Khalil, post:54, topic:35644”]
Once one starts with “God’s Creation,” the topic already involves religion/theology to at least some degree
[/quote]
Something I clearly assumed in my previous response to you, in the part that you ignored.

57

Let me put it this way. Take these two statements:
“Science is our best shot at understanding God’s creation.”
“Theology is our best shot at understanding God’s creation.”

My view is that, depending on context, each can be true or false. In a discussion of the age of the earth with a YEC, the first is true and the second is false. In a discussion of the purpose for human existence with an atheist scientist, the second is true and the first is false. I see little value in simply substituting one for the other in either direction.

5 Likes
58

Just curious to see your thoughts on the effects of the unusual solar cycle activity and the upcoming solar minimum and possibly a grand solar minimum on the weather patterns over the next 10-20 years?

59

@Skoshland

I haven’t read anything about the solar cycle that describes it as having much to do with global warming. We’ve been getting hotter … even when the sun was reducing it’s output.

But I suppose if you have a more energetic sun and increasingly more CO2 in the atmosphere… we can kiss some more glaciers good bye a little sooner than expected.

Europe and South America get much of their urban water supplies from glaciers. Maybe we need to start making some man-made glaciers to make up for the loss…

60

George, When we consider C02 forcing on temperature it is a rather simplistic view of a very complicated multi factor system that effects our climate. It just looks at the energy in and energy out. It is equally important to consider how the energy is distributed and the system dynamics. Apparently, the solar cycle of solar flares are well known to effect our climate. See the Maunder Minimum and Dalton minimum. It seems that the Suns solar cycles may effect the earths magnetic field and this has resulted in changes in the sub tropical and polar jet streams that effected the climate and weather patterns.

61

Yes, solar cycles are known to affect the climate. However, I think most who’ve studied that phenomena found that these contributions do not account for the long term trends observed.

And yes, climate is complicated and affected by multiple factors. But CO2 forcing seems to be a significant factor in elevating heat retention today.

62

Argon. Sure no doubt about CO2 effects on temperature change but the point is that C02 alone doesn’t explain the climate changes and variation we see from the end of the last ice age. There have been great warming periods and there have been significant cooling periods. And there have been great regional variability in climate and temperature. The point is that regardless of overall average temperature there are many factors influencing regional climate. What I am pointing out is that the Sun solar flare activity is showing unusually low activity and some suggesting that this may result in a grand solar minimum over the next 5-20 years. Every Grand solar minimum such as the Maunder and Dalton has been associated with periods of cooler harsh winters and even cooler Summers in parts of the northern hemisphere especially Europe. These Grand solar minima have been linked to famines especially in Europe. It is not understood how the solar flares effect the earths climate but this is probably not an effect of temperature as the solar output is not that significantly reduced. But there may be some effect on the jet streams and even the Atlantic oscillation which are the key to climate that we see.

63

@Skoshland, you can throw a lot of dust into the air (pun intended)… but at the end of the day, glaciation with mile high glaciers followed by the melting of these mile high glaciers was accomplished 8 times in 800,000 years … with atmospheric CO2 swinging back and forth between 180 ppm and 280 ppm… most of which was driven by the Milankovitch Cycles.

All other factors average out and only have limited influence on this master cycle of warming and cooling.

Now we have 400 ppm, which is a 40%+ increase in greenhouse gas from the highest the Earth ever needed to melt down all the glaciers for almost the last 1 million years.

I don’t find your scattered references to all the other minor factors very persuasive compared to what we know about the driver behind the climate pendulum. Now the master cycle is swamped out … and because we can release CO2 stored in the ground much more quickly than the CO2 can be returned to the ground … it will be centuries before the Earth will have settled back down into a normal cycle…

Admittedly, by then, I hope we know what to do to avoid a mile high glacier from wiping out Manhattan!

64

George. I totally agree that C02 is increasing our global temperature, and very well understand the Milankovich cycles effects on glaciers and interglacials what I am talking about is regional short term weather patterns. It is to simplistic to say well global warming means that the temperature will be higher at my house every day. The climate is a dynamic system with multiple impact factors that determine energy variation. I am sure that you understand that Europe is warmer than it should be due to the Atlantic Oscillation (gulf stream). This is essentially the ocean transferring heat energy from the equator up to Northern Latitudes. Regardless of current C02 effects if the Gulf Stream slowed down this would cause Europe to significantly cool. It seems that these Grand solar minimum may have an effect on the jet streams and maybe the oceans Thermohyline currents that will cause cooler weather particularly in Europe but also North America as well. In the past these grand solar minima have caused significant famines due to reduced crop production in Europe. Global warming will continue only that we may see a cooling weather pattern in Europe and parts of North America while other parts of the planet may significantly warm.

65

Nobody is suggesting it was. What researchers have found is that starting with the industrial revolution, humans have significantly increased CO2 in the atmosphere and that the elevating concentrations of CO2 is a major factor in the increased global heat retention observed over the last century.

1 Like
66

@Skoshland,

Yes, very well articulated! And now that I better understand the context in which you are writing your comments, I have to wholeheartedly agree with everything you wrote in that post.

Even when it comes to glaciers, there is no 100% consistent pattern. Some changes in weather patterns do actually involve more snow appearing in some corners of the Earth, and thus in these scattered locations glaciers are increasing - - while globally the net loss of glacier mass is quite rapid!

Your knowledge of local weather effects is certainly superior to mine. But I share your concern about the Gulf Stream slowing down. As you must know, currents like the Gulf Stream are energized by significant differences in temperature profiles … in order to get the current to rise up where it is supposed to rise up, and sink down where it is supposed to sink down.

If the day comes when the Gulf Stream collapses because too much of its travel route is “very luke warm water” surrounded by “mildly luke warm water” - - I have to think this would be terrifically (“terrific” in the original sense of the word, based on the root: terrify) terrible.

There was an extended period of Earth’s history when it was literally a ball of mostly oceans covered with a layer of snow and ice. This was the result of a failed current system that did not distribute the warmth of the equatorial oceans to the rest of the planet. The only way out was to wait for the continental plates to continue with their movements until new currents could be diverted - - sending deeper layers of warm water (wherever they had been accumulated) to defrost the Earth once again.

I am glad I am 60. My interest in Earth’s physical future diminishes as I see massive political parties trying to calculate all the ways they can reduce their tax burdens while the rest of civilization burns down.

The special advantage of Christian’s cosmological view of Heaven and the heavens is that we are not vulnerable to that special horror the Sumerians, Babylonians and even Greeks and Romans felt: if something happened to the Earth - - all the futures of those reposing in the underworld of the dead (the Greeks thought there was an especially nice place in the Underworld for people of merit) would be suddenly and permanently destroyed!

Only the “holy ones” that had been transferred to the heavens as “stars” would be saved from that awful fate.

67

George. We are all family in Christ searching to better know Him and His creation. His creation of the Earth and its climate is beautiful and amazing. The climate modeling is incredibly complicated. I don’t claim to know or understand even a small part. But what is clear that history has shown that the climate changes have greatly effected human civilization over the last 10,000 years. Civilizations have risen and fallen due to the climate. We are destroying the planet and we as Shepard’s of the Lords creation must work to understand the climate of the planet and adapt our behavior. These solar variations can potentially be dangerous in their own right even without global warming. We should know better within 2-5 years if this will be a grand minimum but if it is we should prepare for a difficult time. Extreme Cold can be as damaging as hot weather.

1 Like
68

“Sweet Chariot, swing low, to take me home.”

And could you step on it? Godspeed sweet Chariot!