Culture Wars

[poliphilo]

I've never understood why one shouldn't accept evolution and still be open to the existence of God. That, apparently was Darwin's own position. It was the position of a lot of other Victorians too. People like Charles Kingsley, Matthew Arnold, Robert Browning. They absorbed the new scientific information and adjusted their theology accordingly. I'm a bit hazy now about what they taught me at Westcott House Theological College- nearly 40 years ago- but I remember reading a huge and very entertaining book about the 19th century culture wars and coming to the end and thinking, "Well that's sorted; I don't have to worry about that any more."

God may or may not exist- but if He does, why shouldn't evolution be one of his tools? Simple as that.

But here we are- well over a century after it seemed like the issue was settled- and the controversy is still raging- only now the Darwinists- some of them-  (unmindful of their man's quiet agnosticism) are just as virulent and bigoted as their fundamentalist opponents. A Professor Reiss has just had to step down from his job as Director of Education for the Royal Society for suggesting, in a nuanced speech, that Creationsim should be treated with respect in Science classes and engaged with- because, well,  stomping all over people's sensitive religious and cultural beliefs just alienates them and is counterproductive.

A modest proposal- maybe even mistaken- but surely not a resigning matter?

When people get fanatical about defending- or aggressively advancing- a position- one has to wonder why they're so afraid.  Darwin didn't feel threatened by Theists. Why should his successors?

My own quiet, agnostic suspicion is that a paradigm shift is on its way. Scientific materialism- of a rather basic kind, not really justified by the data- has become the orthodoxy of western liberal society.  It's the norm not to believe in God or spirituality or anything like that. An unexamined Atheism has become our comfort blanket- banishing the need to even consider whole, vast swathes of human experience. Ghosts? Don't exist; end of story- you know the sort of thing.  But what if real science- as in quantum physics- CERN etc- actually suggests otherwise? Well, perhaps we get jumpy and tetchy and start shouting at Muslims.

And sacking mild-mannered professors.

I dont know enough science- of any kind- to take this argument much further. All, I've got, really, is a gut feeling, a hunch. And a distaste for fanaticism. I don't like it when a silly person stands up and bangs the cover of a bronze age religious book (which he probably hasn't read)  and says it contains all the science anyone needs to know- but equally I don't like it when a silly person stands up and bangs the cover of a 19th century science book (which he probably hasn't read) and says it contains all the theology we need to know.  I suspect both of them are running scared.

And what they're running scared of is the truth.

Comments

[senordildo.livejournal.com]

"I've never understood why one shouldn't accept evolution and still be open to the existence of God. That, apparently was Darwin's own position."

From what I read, Darwin's position was that he couldn't definitively rule out God, but that he couldn't accept "the Bible as a divine revelation," or that Jesus Christ was the son of God. Accepting evolution essentially means heavily revising or tossing out the idea of an interfering Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. You can still posit the idea of God perhaps being the force behind the Big Bang, but go too far beyond that and you begin having to suture religious texts into science. That perhaps is why many religious people are upset by Evolution.

"God may or may not exist- but if He does, why shouldn't evolution be one of his tools? Simple as that."

If it is, then he's a much more distant and neutral figure than most religious people would be comfortable with. And

Professor Reiss's position seemed to me quite shameful. Creationism is not a science and thus has no place in a science classroom. It has no scientific discoveries to its name or history--just a set of theories backed up by no evidence. I do not want anyone telling children that the earth is only a few thousand years old or that an intelligent designer was apparently dumb enough to design people with appendixes. No, people's religious beliefs should not be stomped on. But accepted scientific discoveries and practices should not be undercut because people have been taught conflicting material.

"It's the norm not to believe in God or spirituality or anything like that."

The norm in Britain perhaps. Here in the states things are much different. And I quite enjoyed Christopher Hitchen's God is Not Great. While I don't think one can rule out the idea of a God-like force, the conventional big-three God cannot stand as he was. As Hitchens states, religious belief will probably never die out, but it will shift into less conventional forms.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I grew up within a liberal, Anglican Christianity that found little difficulty reconciling God and Science. Somewhere in the background was the acknowledgement that scientific and mythological thought employ different parts of the brain- but that both are valid.

My understanding of Reiss is that his suggestion was quite gentle and nuanced. I don't think he was advocating the teaching of Creationism, merely that if you are faced with a classroom full of little Muslims you need to acknowledge their existing beliefs and engage them in a debate about the difference between religious and scientific thinking. He could well be wrong, but I don't think he should have had to step down.

[richenda.livejournal.com]

Completely agree with your take on this, and with his, if you are correct about his thinking.
Surely a good teacher always starts where his pupils are, and how could anything be taught successfully if the teacher couldn't or wouldn't take into account the POV of the pupil?
I knew an RE teacher who had problems with someone who wouldn't even open a certain Bible translation. She got round it by suggesting that this was simply a set textbook like any other set textbook, and the pupil was completely at liberty to compare it with his/her preferred translation. Not a complete analogy, but not unlike the need for a science teacher to acknowledge the creationism POV.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

The people who have forced Reiss's resignation have behaved exactly like the religious extremists they deplore.

I like that story. The good teacher doesn't simply impose her will, but negotiates with the pupil.