Exploring Ecumenism

The Not-So-Selfish Gene

I want to start my exploration of evolution with an article The Not-So-Selfish Gene, by Bob Holmes in the New Scientist, 7 March 2009.  Near the beginning, on page 36, he writes:

This relentless focus on the gene may not tell the whole story, however.  A small but growing coterie of evolutionary biologists argue that it leaves us blind to crucial evolutionary processes at higher scales - among groups, species and even whole ecosystem.  If they are right, the popular view of evolution and the biological world needs a radical shake-up.

My first response to reading this was 'too right it does'.  What on earth is going on here? 

Conversations between Theologians and Scientists

I do not usually participate in conversations between theologians and scientists.  My purpose in touching upon this subject is to map out some of the possibilities for ecumenical conversations. 

I am also aware I am assuming an elementary understanding of the issues involved.  The reason is that when I read discussions on websites between Christians and scientists it seems there is a degree of mutual incomprehension.

God does not Trump Theory

It is a pity this has to be said particularly because it is obvious to most people.  But Christians take note, God does not trump theory.  Neither does the Bible, whether or not you believe it is God's inerrant word.  The reason for this is to do with the nature of theory. 

On Materialism, Science and Theology

One key to unlocking science and the Christian faith is materialism.  There seem to be a variety of interpretations of this word.  I will use materialism and its derivatives in the sense of a belief that is essentially reductionist.  The belief that everything we encounter can be explained in terms of the fundamental particles from which it is made.  This is also sometimes described as a mechanical view of the universe.

Ecumenism and Science

Some time ago I opened up the theme of cosmology and did not pursue it.  The time has come to pick it up and develop it in a more systematic way.  The first thing though is to say cosmology is part of the wider theme of science in general.  My intention is to follow up several themes under this heading, including Darwinism as well as cosmology.  I also intend to touch on the debates about atheism.

Why cover these issues in a blog about ecumenism? 

The First Commandment is One Commandment not Three

I want to pick up on yesterday's post, with a small diversion into a piece of exegesis we looked at during a recent meeting of the Christian Praxis Group. 

The text is Mark 12:27-34.  This is the story of the scribe who asks 'which is the first commandment of all?' (v28)  Verse 27 picks up at the end of the previous story where Jesus tells the Sadducees, 'you are quite wrong'.

A New Cosmology?

Reflecting upon yesterday's post, about science and theology, I thought this might be a good opportunity to open up another strand of this blog: cosmology.  This is a massive subject and in this first post on the subject I will sketch in outline a theme I will develop in more detail over several (non-consecutive) blogs.

My basic point is simple; the Christian faith has known several cosmologies throughout its history and geography.  There is no a priori reason why a given cosmology might be incompatible with the faith, although there may be better or worse fits.  A cosmology is the people's understanding of how the universe works.  If a faith is incompatible with the prevailing worldview it will make heavy weather and its adherents will be marginalised to a greater or lesser extent.

Medieval European cosmology was quite different from first century Palestine's cosmology.  The latter was the basic 'upturned pudding basin on a plate' model whilst Medieval cosmology had the sun circling the earth and the 3 levels of heaven, earth and hell.  I've never read anything about how this change of worldview happened but I suspect the Medieval worldview grew out of theologians' reading of scripture, as memory of the older worldview faded.  At any event, there seems to have been little problem reconciling scripture with this worldview. 

The problems started with the worldview that grew out of Galileo's and Copernicus' observations, and in time became known as the Newtonian worldview.  This was much more than a new understanding of the shape and movements of planets and stars.  It is a mechanical view of the universe and today is probably still the most current 'gut' understanding of the universe.

This worldview differed from previous ones because it was based on empirical observations of reality rather than conjecture based upon ancient writings.  This should not invalidate it in the eyes of Christians but it has not been easy to reconcile it with scripture.  The best known responses have been to attempt to force science and scripture into a particular reading of scripture (fundamentalism) or to abandon scripture altogether (liberalism).  One of the problems is that in a mechanical universe, all categories are absolute, so God either exists or does not exist - no other possibility is conceivable.  The theological tools exist to deal with this but they are not widely known or understood.

Let me be clear about this - the Newtonian worldview is the current universal worldview.  Even fundamentalists believe in it.  For example, intelligent design is their latest attempt to force science to fit a scriptural mould (or scripture to fit a scientific mould).  Scientists have known about the deficiencies of Darwin's original theory for decades.  It simply isn't true that intelligent design (or the account in Genesis) is the only alternative.  Not only is this bad science it is also bad theology. 

The New Physics, the world of quantum mechanics and complexity theory in particular, is the new cosmology.  In my view this is a much more accommodating worldview for the Christian faith.  At this stage I simply flag this up and express the wish that theologians would take it seriously.  In the terms of classical logic, if the Medieval worldview is the thesis (many hanker after it but it is beyond their grasp; they know too much) and the Newtonian worldview is the antithesis, then the new worldview is the synthesis.  It does not take us back to an ancient mindset but leads us to a new way of seeing things which will make sense of many things that have not made sense for a long time.  The problem is that when we approach it with a Newtonian mindset, it does not appear to make any sense at all.

Ecumenism?  If we want to see full visible unity, my contention is the traditions need to change their worldview; a Newtonian approach can never succeed. 

Science and Theology

At one time theology was known as the Queen of Sciences because it explained all that there was to know.  The loss of this status was to do less with modern science and more with the inadequacy of theological responses to it.  If theologians had made the effort to understand and take part in the growth of science both theology and science might be in different places.

The incomprehension and antagonism of theologians to science is a disgrace.  Christians and especially their leaders have turned their back on scientific method.  At best they may be relatively favourably inclined but how many theologians make the effort to follow science, to keep up to date, let alone actively reflect upon it?

Instead we get a steady stream of of poorly informed statements from church leaders which consistently miss the point.  Science needs to be criticised from a faith perspective but it is rare for this to happen because most theologians don't know what's wrong with it.  By turning their backs on all but a few marginal Christian concerns, the traditions have marginalised themselves from the mainstream of debate.  At worst, some traditions have replaced a positive critique of science with a form of biblical fundamentalism that devalues scripture as well as science and effectively marginalises the Christian faith in terms of its influence for good in the modern world.  Overall, the faith is distorted and God's world is betrayed.

If we had confidence in our traditions, Christians would not fear the findings of science or other faiths or belief systems.  Why are we, the most successful faith on the planet so fearful of anything we do not comprehend or, I fear, can't be bothered to comprehend?

Let's be clear: something is false not because it contradicts a particular (self-interested) reading of scripture but because it devalues people and their place in the universe.

Presence makes the observation that the last few decades have seen the growth of something new in world history, global institutions.  Developments in science and technology have enabled this growth and also the immense damage they are doing to the planet.  They have brought about climate change, the extinction of thousands of species and are poisoning the seas, atmosphere and soil.  None of this will change until there is a change in the hearts of those who control these institutions.  I will return to this some time in the future.

The point I want to make is that the churches together are also a global institution.  This is most notably true of the Catholic Church, which at 1 billion members numbers half the Christians in the world.  But together the churches could be a powerful agent for change.  We could be but outmoded theology, refusal to understand the issues and a focus on internal doctrinal issues makes the churches remarkably ill-prepared for the task.

Recently the Pope formally acknowledged the work of Galileo.  Let us hope we can progress faster than that.  Galileo was never a threat to the faith and neither are Darwin, Newton, Einstein or any other scientist.  Scientists make mistakes but it is Christians who have perceived their work as a threat to the church.  The task is to put a new cosmology at the centre of Christian understanding of the cosmos.  It is possible, it has been done before.  The problem is we haven't got long to do it.

I had not realised how angry I am until I wrote these paragraphs.  I will substantiate what I have written here in future posts.

Pattern Integrity: Views from art and science

Today, as a change, I'm going to offer a couple of insights tangential to yesterday's post about pattern integrity.  Both of them are videos from the TED website.  This site is worth exploring as it includes videos covering a wide range of topics, many of which will interest theologians and preachers. 

The use of hands as an example of pattern interity reminded me of the video The Art of Collecting Stories by Jonathan Harris.  When I first saw this video I was rather bored by the first half but after the first 11 minutes it takes off in a completely unexpected direction.  The artist collects fractions of stories that afford us glimpses of a range of lives that are intensely evocative and somehow transcend their specific backgrounds.

I also commented upon the dificulties attendant upon being inside a system looking out.  The video The Design of the Universe is George Smoot's account of trying to understand the structure of the universe.  Several times the video touches upon the perspective of looking at the universe from a position within it.  Just like Harris, Smoot attempts to observe the universe as it is but this time as a scientist using technology and modelling as methods.

The TED site is a creative commons that aims to share its participants' 18 minute talks as widely as possible, making a contribution to our understanding of the world.  It is worth reading about their purpose.  I have speculated as to whether an ecumenical equivalent might be a possibility.  It would be a massive undertaking but even if it never became a reality it might be a worthwhile exercise to imagine what it might achieve.