I wasn't planning to write anything else about the eclipse, but some things just have to be shared. As I mentioned just yesterday, two of the Discovery Institute (DI) fellows are covering the eclipse via Facebook. Well one of them, Jonathan Witt, had a post today that I just had to laugh at. This post isn't so much about the eclipse, but the workings of the theological mind. Here's his post, if you want to read the whole thing: "I Witnessed the Perfect Solar Eclipse in Missouri. Amazing!" Here's the part that cracked me up (underlines are mine):
" . . . I got into a conversation with a family . . .. I asked them what they thought of the odd fact that the moon fit just perfectly over the sun. Not too small that it never covered it. No so large that it covered too much of the sun and thereby blocking the corona. This meant the corona was beautifully visible during a perfect eclipse.
The family chewed on the question for a moment. A couple of them seem a little puzzled. What was I getting at? Perhaps I hadn’t phrased it well. I know I hurried the question. Finally one answered that, well, the sun and moon fit perfectly because the moon was much closer than the sun, so that made up for the sun being so much bigger.
Yes, of course. The sun was 400 times bigger, but the moon was 400 times closer than the sun. But I had hoped they would wrestle with the question of final causes. What was the deeper explanation for why we had been allowed, on rare occasions, to enjoy something that has dazzled humans for ages and, in recent generations, helped scientists to discover and test some truly amazing things about our universe?"
He asks them a relatively simply question and then he is disappointed in the answer because they didn't go for what he calls the 'deeper explanation'. By 'deeper' he really means 'theological' explanation. He was disappointed because they didn't voluntarily add a layer of unnecessary deitification to their perfectly satisfactory answer.
I don't know if 'deitification' is the right word, but the idea fits. Everything the DI looks at is filtered through their Bible-colored glasses and when they find someone who doesn't look at things the same way, they just tune them out and continue on, adding their religious viewpoint like Jonathan did here. I wonder what the family in question really thought of Jonathan? I am a little surprised he didn't start preaching the DI party line.. He also said in his post:
I do have to ask, just what makes something a 'religious experience'? Is there anything empirical that helps make that determination? No, it's just another opinion. I mean who can contradict you if you say you have had a religious experience? You do learn, especially when you live in a apartment, that hearing "Oh God!" coming through the walls does not necessarily mean an actual religious experience.
I stood with approximately 30 people during the height of the eclipse, looking through a pinhole viewer, sharing several eclipse glasses and discussing the eclipse. Jonathan would have been horribly disappointed in all of us because not a single one voiced anything along the lines of 'deeper meaning'. No one cried out in fear or supplication either.
You know, with how often the DI tries to hide their theology behind ill-fitting lab coats, popular press articles and books, they never seem to really stray far from it. Jonathan shows us this as he ends with a firm nod to his religion and an affirmation why the DI will never be able to convince anyone they aren't a religious ministry:
But he's convinced! Why? It's simple, he cannot rationalize a world without a deity running the show. That's it, his disappointment at the family shows that. He doesn't understand how you can look at the world without a deity in the mix. To him 1+1 doesn't just equals 2, it equals 2 because a deity permits it. He cannot comprehend how anyone sees the world without needing a deity.
But he's convinced -- and also disappointed because not everyone is looking at things as he does. You almost feel sorry for Jonathan . . . well not really. Tell me, Jonathan, how would adding in the opinion that a deity did something do to that family's enjoyment of the eclipse? Like most efforts to add theology into science, it doesn't do anything other than complicate things with non-answers. Just like the DI's claims about Issac Newton, there isn't a point in any of Newton's work where you can say "and here is where God did this". Religious beliefs do not add to our understanding of the universe, it inhibits.
It inhibits some people from asking questions, and others from seeking answers. It has been used many times to stop scientific inquiry in it's tracks. Imagine where we would be if every time someone tried to do something new, or look at something differently there was a Jonathan telling us that one deity or another doesn't agree and we should stop. Look at all the world's religions, I am sure pretty much anything we do will be against one or more of them. Religion can paralyze us, if we let it. We would be at the mercy of perfectly natural events, without any understanding of them. We would probably be still standing outside of our first cave, because someone in the group didn't want to irritate one deity or another.
Without a shred of evidence, Jonathan and Co. want us to place his religious beliefs into everything we do -- whether or not we agree with them and also whether or not they add anything. If not, then he'll be disappointed. Well I hope he is prepared to live with lots and lots of disappointment.
I don't know if 'deitification' is the right word, but the idea fits. Everything the DI looks at is filtered through their Bible-colored glasses and when they find someone who doesn't look at things the same way, they just tune them out and continue on, adding their religious viewpoint like Jonathan did here. I wonder what the family in question really thought of Jonathan? I am a little surprised he didn't start preaching the DI party line.. He also said in his post:
"Many who have described the viewing of a perfect solar eclipse say it as borders on a religious experience, people of many different religious faiths and of no religious faith. What best explaining that feeling?"Yet he didn't seem to be able to find any of the 'many', did he? He only mentioned speaking to one family and yet he says 'many' as if it had any real meaning.
I do have to ask, just what makes something a 'religious experience'? Is there anything empirical that helps make that determination? No, it's just another opinion. I mean who can contradict you if you say you have had a religious experience? You do learn, especially when you live in a apartment, that hearing "Oh God!" coming through the walls does not necessarily mean an actual religious experience.
I stood with approximately 30 people during the height of the eclipse, looking through a pinhole viewer, sharing several eclipse glasses and discussing the eclipse. Jonathan would have been horribly disappointed in all of us because not a single one voiced anything along the lines of 'deeper meaning'. No one cried out in fear or supplication either.
You know, with how often the DI tries to hide their theology behind ill-fitting lab coats, popular press articles and books, they never seem to really stray far from it. Jonathan shows us this as he ends with a firm nod to his religion and an affirmation why the DI will never be able to convince anyone they aren't a religious ministry:
"I am convinced that the best explanation for that feeling of reverence is that there is a maker worthy of reference at work here. And I’m convinced that this explanation — design and not chance — is both the most imaginative, the most reasonable explanation.
Today I was not alone in giving praise to the maker of sun and moon for a perfect solar eclipse. Hallelujah!"He's convinced, even though no one in the DI, or anywhere else, has offered one shred of evidence that such a maker, not only exists but set up things as the DI wants to believe they set things up. Imaginative? Maybe, but hardly reasonable. I will take the family from Jonathan's own experience. He asked them a question and they gave back a perfectly reasonable response . . . only it wasn't reasonable by his standards. Without the insertion of some reference to a deity, he doesn't find that reasonable. So, let me get this straight. Unless you look at 'deeper explanation', any answer isn't reasonable? Why is that? We have thousands of scientific answers that we make use of on a daily basis and not one single one of them requires the invocation of a deity. Wouldn't you consider something that works, and works well, pretty damn reasonable?
But he's convinced! Why? It's simple, he cannot rationalize a world without a deity running the show. That's it, his disappointment at the family shows that. He doesn't understand how you can look at the world without a deity in the mix. To him 1+1 doesn't just equals 2, it equals 2 because a deity permits it. He cannot comprehend how anyone sees the world without needing a deity.
But he's convinced -- and also disappointed because not everyone is looking at things as he does. You almost feel sorry for Jonathan . . . well not really. Tell me, Jonathan, how would adding in the opinion that a deity did something do to that family's enjoyment of the eclipse? Like most efforts to add theology into science, it doesn't do anything other than complicate things with non-answers. Just like the DI's claims about Issac Newton, there isn't a point in any of Newton's work where you can say "and here is where God did this". Religious beliefs do not add to our understanding of the universe, it inhibits.
It inhibits some people from asking questions, and others from seeking answers. It has been used many times to stop scientific inquiry in it's tracks. Imagine where we would be if every time someone tried to do something new, or look at something differently there was a Jonathan telling us that one deity or another doesn't agree and we should stop. Look at all the world's religions, I am sure pretty much anything we do will be against one or more of them. Religion can paralyze us, if we let it. We would be at the mercy of perfectly natural events, without any understanding of them. We would probably be still standing outside of our first cave, because someone in the group didn't want to irritate one deity or another.
Without a shred of evidence, Jonathan and Co. want us to place his religious beliefs into everything we do -- whether or not we agree with them and also whether or not they add anything. If not, then he'll be disappointed. Well I hope he is prepared to live with lots and lots of disappointment.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment