Pickin' on the Little Guy

The Big Shrug

As a Christian, I have often found myself at the center of all sorts of debates. As an intellectual, I relish them. And, lucky me, the world is full of them. There are many points of contention within the Faith, outside of it, and at every point in between. If there truly were a "Devil's Advocate" he would have an embarrassment of riches from billable hours.

Speaking, specifically, of the debate that challenges the veracity of the Bible based on archeological, chronological, or scientific  contradictions; I find the subjects to be vast and time consuming. And, in intellectual fairness, I can't simply overlook them.

In the presence of all of those questions my answer can only be:
"I don't know,"

Now I can hear the eye rolling on both sides of the fence. Yet, I find this reaction ironic. Isn't uncertainly and doubt an intrinsic quality of those who count on empirical evidence and in those who walk by faith?

Doesn't scientific investigation both begin and in with doubts and questions? Every hypothesis starts with a question as every conclusion ends with one. The word Dogma has been applied to theory as well as doctrine. 

Isn't the very definition of faith to believe in something that you have no evidence of it were entirely material? To believe in something that you do not even have a possibility of doubting is only following one's commonsense.

There is a word for somebody who looks at the universe with a sense of complete certainty : zealot.

Get the Story Right

But one thing that I am certain of is the the fallacy of narrative. On this, I am (somewhat of) an authority. Not only have I been a student of the craft of narrative for the last 30 of my 38 years, but I have also been married for 14 of those years. And, as anyone who has been in a long-term relationship will tell you, my mate is a woman of unimpeachable character... but her memory  is a filthy liar. If you ever see us together, ask her how we met and then watch me as I try not to roll my eyes or interrupt. All of my studies on memory tell me that both of us are a little right... and a little wrong. 

In Brooke Gladstone's book, The Influencing Machine, she recounts how political pressure, perspective, personal bias, and simple human error have influenced our media since stylus was put to clay. Even when we look at stories that have been printed/broadcast in the 21st century, we see that error and misinformation abounds. Ironic in an century where digital recording devices and their records are more accessible and ubiquitous than an any other time in human history. 

(the name of Ms. Gladstone's book is a link to the Amazon.com page. I suggest you read the preview it provides. The book was entirely fascinating and will change the way you look at the news media.)

Given the fallacy of a narrative to translate correctly over a decade or even a day, isn't it unfair to expect a narrative to hold up under scrutiny over 4,000 years after it was originally written. There are so many barriers to understanding  information that was written/told so long ago. 

In this respect, the Bible is an easy target. In reality, it's difficult to present any narrative that is more than a century old and not find some holes in the story. 

As storyteller and as an audience, we make so many assumptions about the other that the gaps between Speech and Phenomena become more and more pronounced as variables are added. 

Consider the sever lack of emotional content in ancient text in relationship to modern text. In depth descriptions of grief, fear, anger, joy, tenderness were not present or were not being expressed, at that time. 

The Odyssey, for instance, would strike me as an extremely emotional story, yet the characters seem emotionally shallow. It is hard to say whether the actions of Paris were driven by lust, love, or hubris. 

If we are to assume that there were a God, what language 4,000 years ago would have the vocabulary to describe the feats of science that they saw (for the purposes of this mental exercise, you would do well to concede that miracles are only an application of physics, biology, and/or chemistry that have not been properly explained or understood). 

Let's assume that, somehow, rather than storing the actual animals on Noah's ark, Noah was, somehow, able to store the DNA of all the world's animals (I understand that is an assumption of Clarkian proportions... but it's fun to pretend). What language would Noah have used to explain that to his grandchildren. What language or ideological context would they have had 1,000 years later to retell that story.

If that is a stretch for you, then try this. Try to explain an iPad as you would imagine someone from the Old Testament explaining it. Quite tricky, isn't it? Especially when you consider there wasn't a single component on/in an iPad that was invented 4,000 years ago. Even the characters in the ebook was a relatively new idea. 

So try and explain thermodynamics or relativity in any ancient tongue using an ancient world view. Good luck!

So What's the Point?

I have said all of this to say, simply, that Faith is not an exercise of the logos. The last 400 years of focus on empirical thought have trained us to value the logic as it is informed by empirical evidence. And, although, this method has failed us time and time again it is usually more reliable than sitting around a fire while a shaman divines the intent of the universe by throwing chicken bones.

Unfortunately, both approaches to truth find themselves corrupted by an eisegesical tendency. Weather it's Henry VIII starting his own church so he can get a divorce or The Royal Institution's refusal to recognize that the oldest human bones came from Africa because the evidence violated their eurocentric world view, people have a tendency to create their own convenient truths regardless of the medium.

Faith is a function of the ethos. 

Our pathos is, admittedly, brutal, selfish, and violent. Our id values revenge over justice, greed over generosity, and apathy over love. While there are animals who only have one mate for their entire life, human beings are physically, emotionally, and even chemically predisposed to promiscuous mating. 

Humans need a code of ethics. A constitution, if you will, of the mind and heart that gives clear guidelines for a sustainable self and a stable society. Here, lies one of those debates I spoke of earlier. Evolutionary psychologists suggest that some of our ethos evolved to facilitate our survival. Philosophers such as René Girard  suggest that we were only able to overcome our animal nature through the codifying of behavior via religion. 

If you are a student of scripture, you would have a hard time identifying fault of those who follow the complete teachings of the Bible. Usually, critics resort to questioning the Old Testament and attacking the science and/or. That's a bit like criticizing the Gettysburg Address for having a poor soundtrack (it was not a musical performance). But if you properly study and apply the moral imperatives, how does the Bible make anyone a bad person?

You can say that the New Testament still encourages bigotry. But that's only if you have a moral compass that is fluid. And, let's be honest, history has shown us that there isn't any evil that a population can't be, over time, convinced to adopt as normal or even good. 

Often time we are totally oblivious to the hypocrisy and mercurial nature of our ethical and moral barometers. We condemn the Spartans for killing deformed babies (this is suspected to be a myth started by Plutarch in the first century) while we defend the rights of women to terminate their own pregnancies. The only justification we have for this is an almost arbitrary set of standards for what counts as life. Standards that we don't even apply to our search of extra-terrestrial life. 

The Bible sets a set of standards that are not dependent upon changing norms or feelings. This protects us from behavior that, later, we may find reprehensible. Every single perversion of it's text does not stand up under academic scrutiny, much less, spiritual. Slavery, genocide, and persecutions were not functions of people following the Bible. but people using the Bible to excuse their behavior. The Bible was used as a medium to convince the aggressor that he was not a monster. 

But we know, from history, that this is not a function of religion on man... but man on religion. 

A Christian man, by definition, is kind, compassionate, loyal, hard-working, wise, frugal, generous, and studious. 

Any interpretation that says otherwise is a gross and selfish misuse of a most  useful text. 

In Love and Service, 
-- Aurelius Raines II

Bloggers Test

Welcome

Jai Hale explores the inside of a computer.

Trinity examines a seed under magnification.

We have already had a GREAT year in Science studies.
I would like to use this newsletter to share some of those adventures with you.

My goal is to continue to raise the quality of science education at Cambridge school and prepare our students with the tools needed to be assets in the 21st century job market. There are enough unfilled jobs in the sciences to drive down the unemployment rate and provide secure and meaningful jobs for our children. Once more, they don't need to be inventors or ground-breaking chemists. They just need an education that prepares them for the work.

Deja and Khalil experiment with genetics.

So here we are at, what President Obama called, a "Sputnik Moment" where the challenges we face are outstripped by our students preparation to meet them. It is my mission to transform Science from a memorization of facts to the adoption of an attitude (curiosity) and method (Scientific Inquiry).

Solomon employes a luster test to identify a rock sample

In light of that, you will be noticing an evolution in the type of study we'll be doing and the content of our assessments. The last quarter was a transition period of primarily fact learning. In the second quarter, the ability to store facts will become less important and the ability to think critically will come to the forefront.

That means that the flash cards will become less useful and my test and quizzes will become "cram-proof". Either I will be successful in teaching the skill or we will have to approach it again. Memorizing random information on Wednesday only to for get on Thursday will not work in this class. This is a bad habit, that unfortunately, an inferior school system supports.

Tyler dissects a flower to learn about plant reproduction

As always, to the left are some parent resources that I encourage you to explore.

Since I am convinced that the bulk of my parents DO NOT read my newsletters, I am going to do an experiment. I will give 10 pts. extra credit to any student whose parents e-mail me with an answers to these questions:
Why is Science an important subject?
What can you do at home to promote Science learning?

email your answers to araines@cambridgechicago.com

Look forward to talking with you again.

-- Mr. Raines
 

The Madman

This blog is simple. It's job is to be a forum for the "God Questions". A place to examine the question of God and all of the implications associated. All are welcome, both believers and atheists.

The journal takes it's name from a parable written by Kahlil Gibran, The Madman. We come to this place free of our masks and preconceptions, our naked faces turned to the sun and basking in the light of Truth. In doing so, we become alienated from our peers in the academy or at the church and wander as madmen.

The only rules require that we find a different paradigm for the conversations here.

While you are encouraged to be judgmental (doomed is a culture where "judgement" has fallen out of fashion), you must respect all questions as pathways to truth. No question asked in sincerity should be dismissed. It should be answered with all of the care, research, and sincerity in which it was asked. No Jesus Saves, God is Dead, John 3:16, or any other cliched arguments. If you must bring up Hitler, Nazis, or Rosa Parks, you better have a REAL good argument. Again all parties would agree that these troupes are often over-used and under-served. Intellectual and rhetorical laziness is not appreciated here.

Be civil. No cursing or name calling. Not because the Bible says so, but because these are the tools of mean thought and ordinary thinkers. Our thoughts are extra-ordinary. Be aware that the internet often gives us license to behave in ways that lessen our thoughts and our selves. Resist the temptation.

Bring your intellect. Although I respect an individual's emotional, spiritual, and cultural reasons, this is a forum designed to answer the intellectual questions that often go un-examined. This forum recognizes that, for many of us, faith is not enough. It also recognizes that, whether you consider yourself a  believer or not, faith is all we have.

So I will post questions and meditations here. Feel free to comment.

The first question is one of the most basic ones. Is there a God? If so, what is the nature of that God. 

-- Aurelius Raines II