When Science Plays God

There are some who think science can explain everything, fix everything, and will lead us to the perfection of man. It seems that we were warned about this in 1818 when the Enlightenment confidence in science was still peaking. Consider this quote from Mary Shelley's Frankenstein:

Partly from curiosity, and partly from idleness, I went into the lecturing room, which M. Waldman entered shortly afterward…. He appeared about fifty years of age, but with an aspect expressive of the greatest benevolence … and his voice was the sweetest I had ever heard. He began his lecture by a recapitulation of the history of chemistry and the various improvements made by different men of learning, pronouncing with fervour the names of the most distinguished discoverers. He then took a cursory view of the present state of the science, and explained many of its elementary terms. After having made a few preparatory experiments, he concluded with a panegyric upon modern chemistry, the terms of which I shall never forget: -

‘The ancient teacher of this science,’ said he, ‘promised impossibilities, and performed nothing. The modern masters promise very little; they know that metals cannot be transmuted, and that the elixir of life is a chimera. But these philosophers, whose hands seem only made to dabble in dirt, and their eyes to pour over the microscope or crucible, have indeed performed miracles. They penetrate into the recesses of nature, and show how she works in her hiding-places. They ascend into the heavens; they have discovered how the blood circulates, and the most unlimited powers; they can command the thunders of heaven, mimic the earthquake, and even mock the invisible world with its own shadows.’

Such were the professor’s words – or rather let me say such the words of the fate – enounced to destroy me. As he went on I felt as if my soul were grappling with a palpable enemy; one by one the various keys were touched which formed the mechanism of my being: chord after chord was sounded, and soon my mind was filled with one thought, one conception, one purpose. So much has been done, exclaimed the soul of Frankenstein, - more, far more, will I achieve: treading in the steps already marked, I will pioneer a new way, explore unknown powers, and unfold to the world the deepest mysteries of creation.

Psalm 100, oughts, and is

Serve the Lord with gladness!

Come into his presence with singing!

Know that the Lord, he is God!

It is he who made us, and we are his;

we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.

Enter his gates with thanksgiving,

and his courts with praise!

Give thanks to him; bless his name!

A Christian friend who was studying philosophy once told me "you can't get an ought from an is." That puzzled me because Scripture seemed to be full of commands telling God's people what they ought to do and even what the must do because of what is the case.

Take the passage above from Psalm 100, which says we must praise the Lord with gladness because "the Lord, he is God." Last year another friend said that except for in the area of theology "we can't get an ought from an is." At least he recognized that the fact that "God is" means we ought to do something. But I had come to the conclusion that the whole dictum was self-defeating, so I said: "Do you mean to say that it is the case that we ought not get an ought from an is?" He just smiled.

Doesn't every argument end with an appeal to belief? Every argument says: "Look at this thing that is, now you ought to believe it." Right? 

Must We All Be Historians?

Yes! The fact that God revealed himself at particular times, in particular places, and in particular languages requires us to be good historians. He has put the burden on us by privileging certain historical moments and contexts. 

This flies in the face of the chronological snobbery that assumes that our advanced technology privileges us over the past. The fact that Jesus didn't come in 21st century America should humble us. It should cause us to seek the historical-grammatical understanding of Scripture for the sake of authentic personal encounter with the living God. 

For instance, biblical writers assume the covenantal understandings of signs and promise and household. This is because God revealed himself via covenants, where he made promises, gave visible signs of those promises, and worked through the authority structures of families, churches, and states. We are at such a distance from covenantal culture that we have to deprogram our individualism and program covenantal structures. We have to enter redemptive history through the word and sacraments of the church and think historically about our redemptive history. Christianity didn't begin with us, and so we must begin where Christianity began--in history! 

Blinded by the Enlightenment

I recently read Bram Stoker's Dracula and found it not only "spookical," to use a Lewisian term, but also an interesting critique of the Enlightenment worldview. Count Dracula expands his hunting grounds by moving to London, which is the center of the industrial revolution and steeped in the age of reason. When solicitor, Jonathan Harker, traveled to Transylvania to help convey the Count to London, the rational young man found the Count's native land still submerged in old world superstitions. When the locals he meets along the way find out that he is traveling to Dracula's castle they seem dumbstruck. After recovering themselves they forcefully try to deter him, and when they cannot prevail, they insist that he accept their religious relics for protection. One night he sees the count descending the castle wall headfirst, and assures himself that he must be seeing things in the moonlight.

When the count arrives in London and begins his nightly reign of supernatural terror, no one knows how to explain what they see. A young women in the flower of youth drained of blood in single night without a drop in sight the next morning, puncture marks on her neck, bat noises outside the window, a wolf attack, and other strange animal behavior are all scientifically recorded in journals without an inkling of what's going on. The empirical evidence is there, but the worldview is found wanting. That is, until a real scientist shows up in the person of Abraham Van Helsing. Professor Van Helsing recognizes the signs but doesn't reveal anything until he can deliver the proof to his blinded young friends.

He soon takes them on a night errand to encounter the now undead Lucy Westenra, who three of the group had proposed to a short time before. The encounter with supernatural evil shatters the Enlightenment worldview of the young men who immediately transfer their loyalties to Van Helsing's Catholic Christian worldview and become vampire hunters. As soon as the truth dispels the Enlightenment perspective, Count Dracula is on the run. He has numerous hiding places but he knows it is only a matter of time before the team finds where he's entombed away from the daylight. 

It seems the vampire's success depended on the Enlightenment denial of the possibility of his existence. Now that Christendom is back at the helm, Dracula must flee back to his remote castle hideaway in the Carpathian mountains of Transylvania before his spiritually awakened foes can intercept him. Jonathan Harker's wife Mina is almost completely under the vampire's sway however, as she had been his target prior to being put to flight. Dracula had mingled his blood and hers in an effort to control her. She begins to show aversion to holy objects such as the sanctified host (believed to be the transubstantiated body of Christ) that Van Helsing had acquired by a special dispensation of the Roman church. Despite what some critics say, it is the cross and supernatural good that poses a threat to the vampire, not modern technology. The real threat to Dracula is inexplicable by science and requires a return to the faith of Christendom in order to win the fight! 

Does It Have to be Fake to be Real?

"Deconstruction" is the post modern approach to all constructions or interpretations of reality.  It has both a positive and negative pole. On the positive, it says examine texts for ways in which they undermine themselves or seek to manipulate the reader. Thus deconstruction can play a positive role in critical thinking about texts and authors, and is especially helpful when applied to yourself.

On the negative side, many post-moderns use deconstruction to reduce everything to power. Thus the deconstructive move sees a power-play behind every text or construction of reality and seeks to expose it. When you point out that deconstruction itself is a power play, many say yes, and more power to me! 

Positive deconstruction can develop a healthy skepticism in us. Negative deconstruction produces cynicism. Post-moderns of the more radical type assume that there's a rip-off behind everything that wishes to be taken seriously or on its own terms. Behind every facade of sincerity lurks a manipulative grab for power. It tries to come to grips with reality by exposing the fakery in everything.

 I was discussing movies with a friend recently and mentioned one of my favorites, which he dismissed as guilty of  sentimentalism because of its happy, romantic ending. He suggested another movie where there was a romantic triangle between a girl and two suitors and the plot built  suspense over which one she would choose. She died before she could declare her choice, but she left a letter to the one she rejected. The letter was never delivered to the rejected suitor, and he was left to believe that his love was not spurned. My friend told me that this was more real than my movie, to which I responded, "What's more real about that?" 

What makes an unhappy, tragic ending more real? Is it more real for someone to be deceived or fulfilled? If the Christian meta-narrative of creation, fall, and redemption is the Truth, then why don't happy, fulfilling endings resonate more than sad ones? Have we imbibed the spirit of the age if we think it has to be fake to be real? 

Ten Commandments of Historiography, VI-X

To the right you see one of my favorite historians, the late Roland Bainton. Bainton once quipped about psycho-history: "Their are grave difficulties in psychoanalyzing the dead."

6. Thou shalt not murder the historical subject with unjustified criticism, slander, or chronological snobbery.

This calls for a distinction between the historical and theological perspectives. The historical perspective means understanding a historical figure or movement according to their historical context. The theological perspective evaluates a historical figure or movement from the Christian worldview. The historical task must logically precede the theological, because we cannot evaluate fairly without first understanding accurately.

Chronological snobbery comes in two kinds. One version says recent is automatically right, and the other says some past period was perfect.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery by being unfaithful to the biblical worldview or untrue to the facts or yourself.

When academia applies pressure we must remember, “The grass withers and the flower fades but … the Word of the Lord stands forever” (Isaiah 40:8).

G. K. Chesterton reminds us that: "The Catholic Church is the only thing which saves a man from … from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age.” One of the reasons we read history is to escape the prejudices of the present: individualism, secularism, relativism, apathy, entertainment, experimentation, etc.

8. Thou shalt not steal from other historians but use proper documentation..

We must realize that claiming someone else’s intellectual property is theft, and that this can be righteously avoided by giving the author’s full name, title, & facts of publication.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against the historical record.

If we only acknowledge our presuppositions and realize how they affect our interpretation, we can love our enemies by treating them fairly.

When will we realize that correlation does not equal causation, and that historical periods are transitional and not absolute divisions.

Beware of the hasty generalization and compare what is best in Christianity to what is worst in another religion.

10. Thou shalt not covet a grand synthesis or grandiose conclusions.

I love this quote from Thomas Carlyle: “Listening from the distance of centuries, across the death chasms and howling kingdoms of decay, it is not easy to catch everything.”

We should look for characteristic features and not assume universal traits. History escapes all our attempts of complete mastery, and we should humbly admit that reality always gets the best of us. Why isn't ignorance one of the academic virtues?

The Ten Commandments of Historiography, I-V

A few years ago a friend and I decided to come up with a memorable way to teach our students how to think historically and then do responsible historiography. Thus was born the Ten Commandments of historiography.
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before the God of history.

The point is that earthly heroes, no matter how inspiring, make disappointing gods. This means we should have the courage to tell history warts and all. This is compatible with a Christian view of history defined as the record of man’s dominion over creation under the providence of a sovereign and all wise God and God’s redemptive actions for his glory and the salvation of his people (I am indebted to Rev. and Headmaster Chris Baker for this definition).

2. Thou shalt not make any graven historical image by idolizing periods or people.

This leads to our working definition of historiography: the reconstruction of history based upon trace evidence recovered from the study of historical sources. It also leads to the distinction of historiography from hagiography, which refers to idolizing and idealizing history and historical figures.

3. Thou shalt not take the primary sources name in vain by using only secondary sources to interpret them.

A primary source is an original source of information about an historical subject, and a secondary source is not original, but based upon research of primary sources. The primacy should be given to primary sources, while not reglecting secondary sources as insightful guides or foils.

4. Remember the historical Sabbath by refreshing yourself with God’s great victories, godly heroes, and historical fiction.

This brings us to the now neglected discipline of moral philosophy, which means learning wisdom from history. Moderns considered themselves too sophisticated to stoop to this and committed themselves to scientific objectivity. But we are undeniably moral creatures who draw moral or immoral conclusions.

The historical imagination plays a role in historiography. History cannot be reduced to a science because it is also an art that requires a good imagination.

5. Honor your historical fathers and mothers by emulating their virtues and abandoning their vices.

A few classic quotes: Cicero, “Not to know what happened before you were born is to remain forever a child.”

George Santayana, “Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.”

Karl Jaspers, “Who I am and where I belong I first learned to know from the mirror of history.”

Has Hitch Met His Match?

Doug Wilson (on the left) and Christopher Hitchens have done a debate book on the existence of God called Is Christianity Good For the World? It originally appeared in Christianity Today, and the part I read is quite good. This is because Wilson doesn't try to play on Hitchens' turf. Instead, he points out that Hitchens is playing on theistic turf when he assumes the distinction between good and evil.

They were doing some live debates in New York and Philadelphia this weekend and the whole thing was filmed for a documentary. According to Wilson, they got on swimmingly and Hitchens signed Wilson's personal copy "Well met." Perhaps they will get on like George Bernard Shaw and G. K. Chesterton and keep it up for years to come. I'm passionately praying for Hitch's conversion. Perhaps he may become a modern day Apostle Paul. The only other Christian that Hitch has debated and really respects is Dinesh D'Souza.

This should also be a good debate because Hitchens and Wilson are known for leading with their chins! Click on the title of this entry to see a preview.