Use of Faith

In the previous post, I attempted to illustrate how science and religion aren’t so different at a very basic, fundamental level. Some of the bedrock tenets of scientific and religious thought, it was argued, requires faith. That faith is quite different in terms of the what specific issues one must “take on faith”, but it is faithfulness in that term’s most basic sense of loyalty or steadfastness.

How scientists and religious believers interpret their faith within and without their respective peer groups can be very different, however.

As a rule, scientists do their work their work alone or in small groups. Using the scientific method (a systematic line of thought characterized by hypothesis, testing, observation, and conclusions comparing the hypothesis to the observed results), the scientist develops their own theories and tests them. When enough observations are recorded, researchers often publish their theories and underlying testing and results for their peers to review, conduct their own confirming experiments, and either confirm or refute the original hypothesis.

Over time, if enough researchers confirm the observation, the theory becomes an accepted part of the scientific thinking of the era. Those theories will continue to be refined and expanded by later generations of scientists as better analytical techniques are developed or new theories challenge the existing paradigm. This is how scientific theories develop and progress.

Translating that into what is then incorporated into the textbooks used to teach future generations of potential scientists, only those theories which the majority of scientists in a given discipline agree with are then codified into the texts used by students. Texts will evolve - new ones are written and existing ones are edited and updated - and stay current with the new paradigms. Controversial theories - while sometimes mentioned in passing in those same textbooks (cold fusion being one contemporary example) - are by-and-large excluded.

The bottom line is the textbooks used by our youngsters growing up in the public school systems around this country are exposed to the best understanding of the sciences available at the time, and agreed to by the vast majority of experts and researchers in that field.

Religious scholars do much the same as scientific researchers in terms of looking at new evidence (for instance, newly-unearthed ancient texts) and evaluating it in terms of the overall picture of religious understanding of the time. They even will write scholarly papers on their finding, which are also evaluated by their peers and used in developing and expanding the religious paradigm.

However, and this is the huge fundamental difference between how scientists and religious believers generally translate their increasing body of knowledge to newcomers, there is not one agreed-to dogma that becomes the accepted religious theory of the time. Different religions - Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, etc. - will look at and incorporate (or perhaps not) new findings. Very few issues facing the modern church are considered universal truths which apply consistently and evenly across all religions.

So herein lies the rub - no major religion can claim to be the one-and-only voice of religion in any country of the world. Many people within a particularly faith can have very strong feelings about their particular, chosen faith, but their is no one “clearinghouse” if you will for one religious belief over all others. The founding fathers who forged this nation, while very religious in many cases themselves, understood this and required the separation of church and state in the Constitution itself.

However, many religions, as part of their religious teachings, require evangelism in order to take their Creator’s message to others in the community and try to convert them to their faith. One particularly loud voice in this regard is the far-Right, evangelical Christian movement. While I have no problem with evangelizing itself, I do have a problem with the undue influence of the evangelical Christian movement in the US.

Which brings me around to an earlier post about Intelligent Design (ID). The proponents of ID are conservative, Republican, evangelicals who see it as their duty to bring “Christian values” to the US populace in order to correct the evils of this country as they perceive them. No matter what generic language they use to try to mask their intent and stay away from separation of church and state arguments, the simple truth is that they are pushing this political agenda and trying to equate it to scientific reasoning.

I think the case has been made pretty effectively made that scientific and religious research have very different approaches, and that those who then use the resulting conclusions have very different ways of communicating those conclusions. Unlike scientific thought, which requires the consensus of the majority of researchers in a given area over a period of many years, religious thought is taught differently depending on any one of the many divergent religious traditions.

The attempt to introduce ID into the public school system in the US is an attempt by the sect of conservative, evangelical Christians (not even all Christian believers in this nation!!) to impose their religious ideology on mainstream US culture. This is clearly a problem on two fronts - this view does not represent all religious believers of all faiths, and it violates the separation clause of the Constitution.

Scientific thought, at least at the level of our public-education (K-12) in this country, is well-established, universally-accepted, and confirmed through repeated scientific challenges and experimentation. Religious thought is not universally accepted nor applied, and is very dependent upon which denomination you may belong to.

Intelligent Design is not scientific thought - it is religious dogma written to look like science. It is not science.

Don’t let ID become a part of your school system’s accepted curriculum. It is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

And be sure to keep an eye out for, and make independent conclusions about, a wide variety of other key issues facing this country. This is only one example of many initiatives the fundamentalist, Conservative, evangelicals are foisting upon us.

Stay vigilant. Stay informed. Stay aware.

Faith

Science and religion, in principle, are not so far apart. At its most basic level, both science and religion have a strong basis in faith.

“Religious” folks will say, “Well, yeah, dah. That’s what it’s all about." Many scientists’ knee-jerk reaction will be, “What are you talking about? What we do has very little to do with faith. We create hypotheses, test them, and refine existing scientific thinking. Little faith is involved in that.”

However, I would argue that a significant amount of faith is the bedrock of both. Some thoughts to ponder about religious faith:

• Major religions around the world have, as the absolute bedrock of their understanding of the world, a belief in a Creator. The name of that Creator varies from religion to religion, but the major religions believe in a single Creator that created the world, the people in it, and continues to be present in our daily lives. Although this Creator remains unseen on earth, religious believers have faith in the Creator’s existence.
• In order for us to understand some part of the Creator’s plan for us and our world, written texts and oral traditions and teachings are passed down from generation to generation. Believers have faith that these written texts and teachings accurately reflect the Creator’s intent for us on this earth, and serve as a textbook of sorts for us to live “faithfully” during our time here.
• Our time here on earth is but a prelude to something much more significant after our bodies no longer function and we move into the afterlife. If we live lives in faithfulness to our Creator, using the written materials provided as a guide, we are promised our reward in the afterlife. We have little idea what our “reward” might be, as it is written nowhere (or at least in cryptic terms) exactly what will happen, but we have faith in the Creator’s plan for us.

Scientists also take a lot on faith. Scientific thinking has been developed over a long period of time, and they take it on faith that their scientific approach to the world is on solid bedrock. Some thoughts to ponder on scientific faith:

• The Scientific Method (SM) is the bedrock of how work is done in the sciences, and the SM is the only method to use to properly do experimentation to build upon the current state of scientific knowledge and move science forward. They have faith, based on centuries of experience by countless scientists, that this methodology is the best way to expand and improve upon the current state of scientific knowledge.
• The theories that have been developed and repeatedly tested over time, such that they are now termed scientific “laws”, are inviolable descriptions of fundamental, measurable properties of not only the world around us, but the universe as a whole. They have faith that these laws are literally universal, and will apply anywhere in the visible universe.
• Scientific knowledge will continue to move onward toward some inevitable “theory of everything”, in which they will eventually be able to describe all phenomena in the universe according to a testable, provable, scientific set of descriptions. Scientists have faith that such a lofty goal is achievable, and that their life’s work will contribute to that goal in some way.

These are clearly just a very small subset of a much larger group of arguments that can be made about how science and religion are similar in terms of a “faith foundation“. They are illustrative of the ways, in my opinion, that the two are very similar up to a certain point. It’s what you do with that faith, and how that faithfulness manifests itself, that is important.

As a prelude to my next post, it becomes critical to what you do with that faith - scientific or religious - in your life that affects how we all experience life together here on this rocky planet we call Earth. What you do with such issues of faith discussed above, what kinds of conclusions you draw, and how you seek to influence others using those faith assumptions, can be very different.

For good and bad.

"Intelligent Design"

I intend for this post to be relatively short, as it is so late. However, I did want to start to chime in on this subject, as I it has huge implications for this country and our place in the world.

First let me say that I am both a trained, degreed chemist with a fair amount of work in the biological sciences (I originally was hoping to become an MD, but life took another path). As such, I am trained and currently practice the scientific method in my daily work life. I am also an ordained elder in the church of my chosen faith, have served on the main governing body of our congregation, and have studied the Bible with varying intensity over the years and pray regularly.

I am neither a top-flight, "Carl Sagan"-type of scientific intellectual, nor am I a Biblical scholar. However, I do have more than superficial knowledge in both areas and feel I can responsibly consider, and comment on, both points of view.

That said, Intelligent Design (or "ID") is one of the single biggest concerns I have about our educational system and, possibly eventually the fabric of who we are as a country, at present. Let me give just a couple of examples why:

• One of the fundamental claims of ID is "there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence." In terms of my faith, I absolutely agree. There are things in the design and mystery of the universe that we will never understand, were never meant to understand (otherwise we, ourselves, would be very nearly god-like), and we have to simply take on faith while living out our lives.
• However, proponents of ID then throw out the concept of Darwinian evolution based on this claim. Without understanding and testing through scientific means, the "irreducible complexity" (a term to be discussed in later writings) of biological systems, IDers discount evolution. I happen to think that God is having some fun with us, and is testing our abilities to think critically. Evolution, in all its complexity, subtlety, and grace, is just the kind of thing that God would rejoice in creating and then watching us struggle over.
• The wording of any writings by proponents of ID, particuarly including those involved in influencing public policy, purposely use ambiguous, secular language. Why? Because anything overtly theistic would automatically be rejected by legislators and the judiciary as a blatant violation of the separation of church and state. By using neutered, vague language, the Religious Right is trying to subvert the separation clause in the Constitution.
• IDers cannot accept the scientific theory that the universe is in the neighborhood of 16-18 billion years old. It flies in the face of the assumption that what is in the Bible is infallibly true and, based on Biblical scholars' calculations, the earth is only about 10,000 years old. I, for one, am not so conceited to think that we understand God's timeframe based on our 24-hour, solar day, and lifetimes of, on average some 60-70 years. Maybe God's time is on a whole different time scale and he choses to use words that our puny little brains can understand. Look to the Bible itself for problems with time - in Genesis 5, Adam lived to be 930 years old, those in the first 9 generations following Adam regularly lived about as long, and Noah himself didn't become a father until he was 500, and didn't build the ark until he was 600!

Does any of this invalidate the Bible? Of course not. I have taken a vow to do nothing to harm the church, and I live that vow every day. The Bible is one of the world's preeminent sources of information of what God wants us to know in order to live well on this earth and to prepare for the glorious reward to come at our deaths.

However, the Bible was written down by humans, with all their fallabilities. We cannot possibly understand all that there is in the universe solely through the Good Book, so there are things we have to accept by faith. However, attempting to force religious education on our children, in public schools, is Constitutionally un-American. Learning about God, how to communicate with Him, what it means to have a personal relationship with Him, and to accept Him as your personal Saviour through Christ are very personal issues. These should properly be taught at home and in your chosen place of worship, as was properly envisioned by the fathers of this nation.

Suffice it to say, I will have more to say on this issue. Religious dogma, whether or not it's wrapped up in sheep's clothing, is still religion. There are many, many false assumptions and distortions used by IDers, and I intend to shine a spotlight on those I deem most relevant.

The "Religious Right" (you don't know how much I despise that moniker) must be exposed for its true motivations and dirty tactics.

Various Mental Wanderings

While I usually have some specific subject to write (and usually rant) about, today I am going to shift gears and just touch on a few things about which I want to say something but, for which, a full-blown column is not required:

• You go, NASA. Keep those shuttles flying, keep developing the technologies with which we will learn about our place in the universe, all while knowing that you have to make due with what you have been given. Did you know that NASA has a budget for 2005 of about $16 billion. Sounds like a lot, right? A couple of interesting facts - Dept. of Defense spending in the US will be in the neighborhood of $425 billion (less some aspects of defense spending that can be hidden in other parts of the budget like defense-related nuclear-weapons research), nearly the amount of spending of the rest of the world's governments combined; the war in Iraq, by some estimates, has cost something like $185 billion so far, with some of the money coming from the regular defense budget but much of it coming from special appropriations made by Congress at the Prez's request. So military spending is conservatively in the $600 billion range - about 37.5 times the budget of NASA. So how's about we cut back by oh, say, 5% in defense spending and give it to NASA? (I think with the reported prices of toilet seats, tools, et al, being charged the government, we could find those bucks pretty easily. But that's right, we have to Military Specifications to purchase supplies. Which means we can't go to one of the Big Box stores - like regular people.) Moving 5% of military spending to NASA's budget would nearly triple their budget - to closing in on $50 billion. For that, NASA could do some really interesting work.
• Did I miss a memo? We are still in the US here, with its employer-friendly workplace rules and not in a European country with much more worker-friendly legislation in place? Five weeks of vacation after about 5 and 1/2 years on the job? Do you get that? Does anyone you know get that? The Prez is spending 5 weeks of vacation on the ranch during August - an unheard of amount of time in recent years. One report I heard noted that it's been over 40 years since someone took this much time off. Oh, that's right, it's a working vacation. You know what, if you're in a job like mine for which I have a cell phone and a lap top, all of my 4 weeks of vacation (granted me after 10 years of service), all of my vacations are working vacations. (Not to mention small business owners - the backbone of our economy. Vacation of any length? Hah!!) Staying ahead on e-mails and voice messages is a way of life for many while "on vacation". But I'm not persuing a major war, trying to keep a slowing economy moving, or dealing with unprecedented increases in the price of oil, or trying to run the largest bureacracy in the world. What gives?
• To all big-time pro athletes, their agents, and team ownership/management - get off your collective high-horses, settle your differences, and get back to work. Make sure your labor settlement sticks (NHL); expunge the stench of steriods, corked bats, and "hot" baseballs designed to fly out of the park (MLB); and stop your holdouts/"contract disputes" (NFL); among others, and do what you do best - play. Major sports is still playing - you are entertainment, a diversion to those of us who really work for a living, inside office buildings, digging trenches, or cooking cheeseburgers, every day. But if you won't do it for just us - do it for those men and women working overseas defending your greedy butts and giving you the opportunity to play for/watching your players play for millions, while they earn as little as $20,000 a year in some cases. Keeping up on sports teams, and perhaps even catching an occasional game, is one of the few things these folks have to link them back to "real life" back here in the US. Believe it or not, you are a lifeline - a bigger role model perhaps than for those kids watching (another important thing you should keep in mind). Get to work, stay there, and at least pretend you're enjoying it.

Think that's about enough for now.

Enjoy your day, and appreciate the little things while you're looking out for the big ones.

Hubris and Conceit - Part 2

Lest anyone think I am strictly a basher of the Republican party, and cannot see abuses of power elsewhere, let's take a little stroll through the current City of Chicago administration.

At least two major scandals have plagued the Daley administration in recent months - the Hired Truck scandal and hiring of city employees. In both cases, political ties and influence have been used illegally.

What has come of the investigations into those scandals? Convictions of city employees, some as high as direct reports to the Mayor himself, on charges including racketeering, mail fraud, tax fraud, bribery and corruption - just to name some of the more serious charges.

In the Hired Truck scandal, dozens of individuals in the adminstration took bribes from people who owned or operated companies that wanted city contracts for various trucking jobs - tow trucks, truckers hauling asphault and other construction materials, etc., were involved.

In the employment scandal, it is estimated that well over 1000 city positions were preferentially awarded to candidates who were less qualified than others, but who had political ties to the administration. Many of those awarded positions come from Daley's home ward in Chicago. The expectation, in return for the job, was politicking on behalf of Daley's cronies in City elections.

The kicker to all this - these nepotistic hiring practices have occurred in Chicago before. A consent decree was ordered in that case, popularly known as the Shakman decree, that was put in place expressly to prevent these types of abuses.

So far, two top city officials have been convicted on charges related to the hiring scandal to date, with more charges and trials pending.

The list of remaining cooperating city employees was supposed to remain under seal. But guess what - somehow, the list was faxed to city employees, so now the list is widely known within the adminstration. No doubt with reprisals against those on that list - protestations from Daley himself to the contrary not withstanding.

Through it all, Mayor Daley has professed his innocence and ignorance of these problems. It's due to "a few bad apples" within in the adminstration (some of whom report to him), and he was unawares.

I believe that about as much as there are still WMDs to be found in Iraq. The entrenched political machine in Chicago is as corrupt as they come.

In the case of this administration, ignorance, hubris, and conceit all have come into play:

- Ignorance, not in the form of not knowing about the various illicit activities, but in terms of being ignorant and arrogant enough to think he would get away with it;

- Hubris, in the form of extreme self-confidence and confidence in his cronies to carry out such egregious acts with anticipated impunity; and

- Conceit in his own worth to the city.

Mr. Daley, the city will operate just fine without you at the helm. In fact, I would hazard to say that it might operate significantly better because the best, most qualified people would fill city positions - IF abuses such as those exposed are stopped.

Your actions have led to the appointment of an external court-appointed monitor to oversee hiring within your adminstration. That action, in a city as large as Chicago, is unprecedented. It is embarrassing, humiliating, and flies in the face of the attempts some are trying to make that the city is a progressive, forward-thinking place.

I, for one, welcome such oversight. Since you can't seem to run a clean organization, perhaps it can be forced upon you.

Better yet, be a man. Confess your knowledge of the scandals, at whatever level that is, and take your lumps. It will be a further black eye to Chicago, but perhaps you can retain some personal dignity.

As you are fond of saying - "Let the voters decide". If you are truly the best at what you do, then you should be reelected even in the face of such scandal. (Unless, of course, there are felony convictions involved).

There is a famous saying that comes to mind in this case - "The buck stops here". That was used in reference to personal responsibility for all that happens in a high-profile adminstration.

Not in reference to lining one's pockets with money, as seems to be the case here.

Editorial Hubris

As I have noted in the past, I read the Chicago Tribune as one source of news from which I mold my opinions on a variety of subjects. I know the conservative bend of the reporting and editorials written by the Editorial Board. However, an editorial in today's paper points to the wrong-thinking of both this administration, those on the right, and conservative editorial writers.

The title of the editorial in question is "The Bolton embarrassment", and basically points out that, now that the Prez has (abusively) used his recess appointment powers to name John Bolton to the UN Ambassador post, time will have to tell whether Bolton embarrasses his bosses in the adminstration or those who opposed his nomination (both Democrat and Republican).

The editorial points to an interview that Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) lableing "...Bolton 'damaged goods' whose failure to win confirmation would cost him credibility...", and further accuses Dodd of sounding "...a little self-important..." for his position.

Then, in the very next paragraph they try to soothe readers by saying, and I paraphrase, that all the other UN ambassadors will know that Bolton represents the Prez, and that Bolton will not be making policy, just representing the US position in that body. The third sentence in that paragraph reads, "They (ambassadors) say and do what their governments (my emphasis) want."

It's clear that the editorial board is mixing up the term "government" with the term "executive branch".

If I remember my grade school Civics lessons, "government" is composed of three branches - judicial, executive, and legislative. The Constitution is quite clear on this. In addition, the Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution the requirement that the legislative branch consider and approve executive-branch nominees for positions such as the UN ambassadorship. The "recess appointment" is a latter-day addition for emergency situations, which I don't think this situation can be classified as such.

Further, the legislative branch blocked a vote on Bolton's nomination during the last session because enough Senators - both Republicans and Democrats - had serious enough concerns that they had requested more information from the White House (which, by the way, flatly denied access to that information).

This is where the entire editorial, and frankly the White House's entire argument, falls apart. Bolton does NOT represent the government at the UN, he represents the executive branch of government. It's an important distinction.

Nominees for positions such as this one, while looked at closely by the Senate at they should be, are typically confirmed by unanimous vote. In this case, no vote was ever taken because 60 votes could not be found to force a vote. And if a vote had been called, it would almost assuredly not have been a unanimous vote for confirmation.

So the White House abused it's recess appointment powers, named this guy to the post, and the Prez knowingly smirked his way through the installation ceremony.

So, Tribune Editorial Board, your logic is flawed. Bolton is, in fact, damaged goods. He cannot effectively represent the government of the US because at least one branch hasn't had the opportunity to weigh in and, if they did, they would have likely defeated this nominee.

Chris Dodd is self-important? Hardly.

Look in the mirror to find out who better fits that description.

Hubris and Conceit - Part 1

Why don’t people see it? Why are so many willing to go along blindly and apparently without concern? Have we learned nothing from history?

The U.S. is the superpower in the world – right now. The preeminent, unchallenged superpower in the world. It will not always be so. There will come a time, mark my words, when we will be a second-rate, backward, “power”.

The Incan empire, the Greeks, the Romans, the former Soviet Union, the former British Empire – all came and went. All either no longer exist or are shells of their former selves. And why? When they got to be the preeminent power in the world as they knew it, they got complacent, lazy, and, in some cases, tried to bully their way in the world.

Are we as a country, particularly under this administration, headed that way? In my humble opinion, yes.

Why, you ask? Let’s take a look:

- As the preeminent power in today’s world, we have the opportunity to truly lead the world into a new age. This is true at many levels – medical technology (we are not, cannot be the leader in stem cell research with current restrictions), information technology (the Chinese and Indian cultures are turning out PhDs in much larger numbers in this area than the US, due in some measure to the measly attention paid to education by this administration), manufacturing (much of our manufacturing infrastructure is outdated, and therefore inefficient relative to newer technologies. As a rule, too little capital money is spent on upgrading in this area. And don’t even get me started on the effect unions have had on the manufacturing sector), among others.

- As the premier military power on the planet, we have a responsibility to use that power responsibly and appropriately. We have attacked and subdued the Afghans in the guise of going after the terrorists that perpetuated 9/11 – and the top leadership of Al Qaeda still exists and can strike. Anyone watching what’s going on in London in the last month? We went after phantom WMDs in Iraq based on trumped-up intelligence, and what have we got to show for it? Our military is mired in two backward countries “installing democracy” while countries that can truly destabilize world peace would be able to do so without concern – if they chose to. North Korea and nukes a concern to anyone? Do we need a sufficient military force, available for duty, in the event they get a bit too frisky? Never mind what this war has done for morale in the military and recruiting in this country. All it’s done is improve recruiting of suicide bombers for those we wish to “educate”.

- What about the fabric of life within our borders? Don’t you think that replacing a centrist woman on the Supreme Court with a conservative good-old-boy will have some impact on our quality of life? By tilting the Court to a more conservative bend, along with the current composition of the Congress and White House, a lot of things are bound to change – and not necessarily for the better. As much as I hate the gridlock that occurs when there is a split of ideology amongst the three branches of the government, I think it’s much more healthy than having them all leaning in the same direction – one way or the other. Democrat or Republican. Both sides have gotten so extreme in their rhetoric in an effort to prove a point that, once either side begins to enact their plans and platforms unilaterally, great harm will occur within this country.

- Finally, the way John Bolton was named to the UN ambassadorship is the worst kind of hubris and conceit I can imagine. Since Bush try to get Bolton, one of his good-old-boys, nominated and confirmed through the regular channels and it didn't work, he abused his powers and waited until Congress was in recess and named Bolton to the post. NEVER before has this been done with such a high-profile, important position. And what will it do for us - not much. I agree with those that say the UN is in need of a shake up and, as a leader in the world, we have a duty to help get appropriate reforms enacted. However, with Bolton's lack of broad support by the political process - brought about by the White House's flat refusal to provide information about Bolton's past work - he will be unable to get anything useful done. His appointment is worse than leaving the position unfilled, and represents cronyism in one of its worst guises.

I could go on and on, but I won’t for now. Suffice it to say that this administration does not represent me on many issues, and for that I pray for the direction our leadership is taking us.

We will become more isolated from the rest of the world; we will become a pariah; we will become a second-rate country if we continue on these paths unabated.

We need to truly take leadership in the world, do it correctly, and don’t throw our collective weight around. Haven’t you watched Jimmy Neutron or most of the other cartoons on TV lately, those of you on the Right?

The bully always gets his in the end.