Randal Rauser's Blog, page 100

Bill Nye: Science Guy: A Review

Where I grew up in south-central British Columbia in the 1980s, we had four channels from Seattle on our limited dial, including Kiro 7. As a result, my early Sunday evenings were spent watching Almost Live, a half-hour local Seattle show with aspirations to be a Pacific Northwest version of Saturday Night Live.

One of my favorite recurring skits focused on a superhero called “Speed Walker” whose powers involved the ability to speed walk to the nearest crime whilst observing all posted regulations. (You can see an episode at YouTube.) Speed Walker was played by a young local comedian named “Bill Nye”. I was in university when Bill Nye the Science Guy launched, so I never watched the show. But I do remember bemusedly realizing that Speed Walker had perambulated onto the national stage (PBS).

It wasn’t until I asked my sixteen-year-old daughter to watch the new documentary Bill Nye: Science Guy on Netflix that I came to realize just how far Speed Walker had come. Her eyes immediately lit up: “Bill Nye? That’s my childhood!” As soon as the documentary began, I realized that her response was no anomaly: apparently, a generation of kids that grew up in the 1990s and 2000s were introduced to science (and a heady dose of zany comedy) by watching Bill Nye videos. Even now, twenty years after the show went off the air, this nerdy older man in the bow tie had retained rock-star status.

But who is Bill Nye? In Bill Nye: Science Guy we get some of the backstory filled in. We discover that Bill’s family is afflicted with ataxia and he struggles with survivor’s guilt that he is free of the disease. We also see his admirable filial affection for his brother and sister. Interestingly, the film flirts with giving deeper glimpses into his life while never revealing too much. For example, we learn that his father suffered a fall from ataxia, but we never hear exactly about the outcome. Bill says he never had children for fear of passing on the genetic trait of the disease, but we never hear about his one very brief and stormy marriage in 2006.

A friend tells us that Bill always wanted to be famous. At times, one suspects that desire for the spotlight has clouded his judgment, most notably in his decision to join in a highly publicized online debate with creationist Ken Ham. Later in the film, Bill visits Ham’s giant “Ark” museum and theme park as we learn that this ill-fated debate spurred conservative Christians to donate to the building of the park. Slowly, the uncomfortable realization dawns that the Ark Encounter might not exist if Bill had declined that debate. To put it bluntly, his desire for the spotlight at times works in opposition to his desire to propagate science education.

The ill-fated Ark debate brings us to the question of religion. Fortunately, Ham is not the only Christian featured in the film. The documentary notably includes some key clips with evangelical Christian Francis Collins (Director of the NIH) who refers to his own Christian faith. These clips help frame the narrative away from the tired warfare model of science and religion: Nye is fighting ignorance, fundamentalism, and science denial, but he is not battling religion, per se.

Several times in the film Bill expresses his desire to leave the world better than he found it. And while he undoubtedly has human flaws (and it is to the documentary’s credit that it depicts them), one can nonetheless conclude that he has achieved this noble goal. For me, two moments stand out as symbols of his enduring legacy.

The first moment comes when a young woman emerges from the throngs of fans of his PBS show to introduce herself as a medical doctor who grew up watching Bill Nye the Science Guy twenty years ago. The viewer can only imagine how many young people were inspired to pursue science and technology because of Bill’s unique approach to science education. Now that’s a cool legacy.

The second moment comes at the end of the film. Early on, we learn that Bill studied under Carl Sagan at Cornell in the 1970s (though he never attained a PhD, a fact his critics never cease in pointing out). One of Sagan’s passion projects was to launch a space probe which could employ a sail to ride the solar wind into interstellar space. Sagan’s dream never came to fruition in his lifetime. But Bill Nye leads the way to the realization of that dream at the end of the film. As Ann Druyan (Sagan’s widow) observes, what could be more epic than riding light through space?

It’s a wonderful image, and it might well serve as a metaphor for science itself. Science is a gift that allows us to sail on the light of new discovery as we boldly go where no one has gone before. And for a generation, Bill Nye has given them the solar sail.

The post Bill Nye: Science Guy: A Review appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Is marriage just for males and females?

This afternoon, Michael Brown posted the following tweet promoting a short (6-minute) video addressing the topic “Can You Be Gay and Christian?”

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize that males were designed for females and females for males. Our Creator knew exactly what He was doing. We illustrate it clearly here: https://t.co/aFa8LNL8nf

— Dr. Michael L. Brown (@DrMichaelLBrown) May 5, 2018

Brown’s comment — “It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to recognize that males were designed for females and females for males” — caught my attention. As a bit of natural theology, it works until it doesn’t. What I mean is that not every human being is born either male or female. And that prompts a practical question: for whom were those folk “designed”?

This is how I put the question in a tweet back to Brown:

“What about those who do not conform (genetically and/or anatomically) to the male/female gender-binary? (E.g. klinefelter syndrome). What would you say to an individual like this who is seeking a life partner?”

Brown promptly replied as follows:

“We recognize these as exceptions to the rule, just like those who are disabled in other ways. But we don’t change the God-given categories because of this, as you surely agree. Each case would need sensitivity and wisdom. I know of some very unusual relationships.”

Unfortunately, that was a cryptic reply which sidestepped my question. So I tweeted again requesting further clarification:

“I agree. But what would your pastoral advice be to a person who was genetically and/or anatomically gender-ambiguous? Would you think they are called to celibacy? Or would you support them seeking a marriage partner?”

This was Brown’s reply:

“I would suggest they seek a suitable marital partner, if possible, also assuming that in most cases, each petson [sic] would ultimately identify as male or female.”

Needless to say, this is an important question that every Christian needs to answer. Are those who congenitally fail to conform to the gender binary called to celibacy? And if so, why? If not, under which conditions may they find relational and sexual wholeness in a marital covenant?

The post Is marriage just for males and females? appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Should evangelicals be denied the right to adopt?

Today the courts in Alberta reversed a decision that denied an evangelical Christian couple the right to adopt a child based on their views of gender and sexuality. Initially, it all seemed very promising. Government workers had provisionally concluded that the couple would provide a stable and loving home for a child. (Notably, the couple wanted to adopt an older child who would be less likely to be adopted. The man was himself adopted as a child and wanted to offer the same experience of a loving home that he had himself experienced.)

But then the couple was asked how they would react if their child wanted to explore their sexuality and was same-sex attracted. The couple responded that they would love the child unconditionally, but that they could not support the child’s decisions insofar as they violated the couple’s fundamental ethical and religious beliefs, including a prohibition on the licitness of same-sex relationships. Based on this conviction alone, the couple was denied their application.

It is that decision which was overturned today.

I am very heartened by this decision, not least because it means that another child will find a loving home. In addition, I find the government’s initial denial to be unfairly discriminatory.

Having said that, I don’t want to invoke a “persecution” narrative against Christians because I can appreciate the reasoning that would undergird the initial denial of the couple’s request. To see my reasoning, consider another hypothetical case. Imagine another couple that applies to adopt. They too are initially seen to offer a loving home. But then they state their opinion that they would not support their child dating a person of another ethnic identity because they do not believe in “race mixing”. Would this be a grounds to deny their request for adoption?

I suspect that most people would agree that this second couple’s views are retrograde and discriminatory, sufficiently so that it would be reasonable to deny their request. With that in mind, insofar as one views the condemnation of same-sex relationships as analogous to the condemnation of inter-racial relationships, one would see the reasonableness of rejecting the former as surely as the latter. For this reason, I can appreciate the basis for the initial judgment, even if I do not share it.

Needless to say, the couple would see things differently. And so let me close by giving what might constitute a rebuttal. The couple would surely deny that their view is relevantly analogous to a prohibition on interracial dating. Rather, they would likely see it as analogous to the prohibition on some other behavior they deem unethical. For example, imagine if the government representative had asked them of their willingness to allow an adopted child to pursue polyamorous relationships (i.e. concurrent sexual relationships with multiple partners). Here too, the prospective parents would surely say no because they judge this to be an unethical lifestyle which violates sexual norms. And I can imagine the vast majority of people would agree that an unwillingness to support a polyamorous lifestyle is not a sufficient reason to prohibit a couple from adoption.

To sum up, there are reasonable positions on both sides of this question, and each is informed by which case an individual believes is relevantly analogous to the denial of same-sex relationships.

The post Should evangelicals be denied the right to adopt? appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Abortion: We may never agree, but can we at least concede the other side has a point?

For decades, abortion has remained among the most volatile ethical and public policy debates in western society. This polarization is rooted in large part in the complexity of the issue itself, but it is also spurred on by uncompromising rhetoric on both sides. Thus, for example, prolifers disparage the prochoice position as “baby murder” while the prochoicers respond by invoking the specter of the dreaded coathanger.

It’s been said that truth is the first casualty of war and that’s as true in a rhetorical war as in any other. And with the wartorn landscape of abortion debate, blitzkrieg seems to be the most commonly preferred means of engagement.

So here’s my proposal: whatever your view on abortion, commit to steelmanning the other side. That is, attempt to give the most rigorous, detailed, nuanced, and persuasive case for the very position you so adamantly reject. And then see what happens. Who knows? You may end up changing your view. Conversely, you may become much more effective at arguing your case to your opponent. But one thing is clear: you will change the conversation.

The post Abortion: We may never agree, but can we at least concede the other side has a point? appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Jesus, the God of Genocide, and William Barclay

William Barclay (d. 1978) is a lot like C.S. Lewis in one key respect: he was a British scholar widely read and trusted by North American evangelicals who nonetheless frequently expressed some relatively radical opinions that sailed under the radar of those same evangelicals.

I was reminded of this again the other day when in our family devotions we were reading through Barclay’s commentary on John. As he reflected on the astounding fact that the Word (Jesus) reveals the eternal God (John 1:1-2), Barclay turned to a fascinating and complex question: how do we reconcile the image of Jesus that comes to us in the Gospels with the apparently violent and capricious depiction of God that is found elsewhere in Scripture? Barclay writes:

“In many ways this idea of pre-existence is very difficult, if not altogether impossible, to grasp. But it does mean one very simple, very practical, and very tremendous thing. If the word was with God before time began, if God’s word is part of the eternal scheme of things, it means that God was always like Jesus. Sometimes we tend to think of God as stern and avenging, and we tend to think that something Jesus did change God’s anger into love and altered his attitude to men. The New Testament knows nothing of that idea. The whole New Testament tells us, this passage of John especially, that God has always been like Jesus. What Jesus did was to open a window in time that we might see the eternal and unchanging love of God.

“We may well ask, ‘What then about some of the things that we read in the Old Testament? What about the passages which speak about commandments of God to wipe out whole cities and to destroy men, women and children? What of the anger and the destructiveness and the jealousy of God that we sometimes read of in the older parts of Scripture?’ The answer is this–it is not God who has changed; it is men’s knowledge of him that has changed. Men wrote these things because they did not know any better; that was the stage which their knowledge of God had reached.

“It is told that a little girl was once confronted with some of the more bloodthirsty and savage parts of the Old Testament. Her comment was; ‘But that happened before God became a Christian!’ If we may so put it with all reverence, when John says that the word was always there, he is saying that God was always a Christian. He is telling us that God was and is and ever shall be like Jesus; but men could never know and realize that until Jesus came.” (The Gospel of John: vol. 1, The Daily Study Bible, rev. ed. (Burlington: Welch, 1975), 37-38.)

Barclay’s claim is radical: it is not God who has changed but rather our understanding of God. Moreover, the canonical guide for the correct understanding is found in Jesus, the Jesus revealed in the New Testament: God always was like Jesus. Barclay leaves it to the reader to draw the implications of his claim: if we accept that God is like Jesus, and Jesus would never command wiping out whole cities of men, women, and children, or exhibiting destructive anger and jealousy, then these depictions of God must be incorrect: “it is not God who has changed; it is men’s knowledge of him that has changed.”

This striking proposal will be sure to invite the charge of “Marcionism” insofar as Barclay seems to pit the Testaments against one another. The more basic charge, however, is simply this: how does one reconcile this proposal with the doctrine of plenary inspiration? Barclay offers no explanation here as to why these otherwise errant passages were included in the “final draft” of the Bible. But if all Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, then in what sense does that ascription apply to these texts, the ones that Barclay describes as bloodthirsty and savage?

The post Jesus, the God of Genocide, and William Barclay appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Does the theology of a songwriter define the song?

Yesterday, my article critiquing the song “Reckless Love” was published at The Christian Post. Steve on Twitter responded that the problem was not simply with the song so much as with the worship group that produced/performed the song:

“we should asking if the Christology and teachings of Bethel are biblically accurate. If it’s not, then the question about a specific song will become moot.”

On Steve’s view, the theology of a songwriter delimits the meaning and function of a song. So, for example, a song’s lyrics may present no obvious theological problem, but if the songwriter holds an aberrant doctrinal view, that view nonetheless renders the lyrics unorthodox and thus inappropriate for corporate singing in an orthodox church.

For example, imagine a song that includes the lyric “Jesus is Lord and he died for your sins.” That appears to be a clearly orthodox statement. However, if the songwriter denies the full divinity of Christ, then the lyric is rendered unorthodox becaues the fullest meaning of “Jesus” in that lyric is fixed by the original belief and thus “authorial intent” of the songwriter.

I do not agree with Steve. When I sing a song that states “Jesus is Lord,” I sing the lyric in accord with my understanding of the words. It’s a good thing too because it is unlikely that I know precisely what the original songwriter’s theology was. Indeed, in many cases, it is impossible to access the songwriter’s beliefs and precise intentions.

This leads to a reductio ad absurdum of the position. If the original songwriter’s meaning delimited the meaning of the song for every subsequent singer or listener, then in virtually all cases subsequent singers and listeners would not know what they are singing or hearing since the original songwriter’s views and intentions would be inaccessible to them. Conversely, to sing any song responsibly, the listener would first need to be apprised of the beliefs of the original creators. But this is absurd.

So to come back to Steve’s critique, regardless of whether a songwriter’s theology is fully orthodox, I still may benefit from listening to and singing the songs since what I would hear and sing when I say “Jesus is Lord” is not delimited by the mental intentions of the original creators/performers.

The post Does the theology of a songwriter define the song? appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Love comes from lousy neurons

Wow, this guy is a real charmer. Here is a great example of why scientists (Linden is a professor of neuroscience) tend to make terrible poets, philosophers, and greeting card writers. Donald McKay, a wise Christian and scientist, used to warn of the naive “nothing buttery” of those who assume that demonstrating a physical, chemical, or biological substrate of x thereby demonstrates that x is nothing but the physical, chemical, and/or biological substrate. And so, we get the deflationary picture of love as the “product of lousy neurons.”

The post Love comes from lousy neurons appeared first on Randal Rauser.

My Latest Article on Atheism at “The Christian Post”

“New Atheism May Be Finished, but Its Sad Legacy Lives On“

The post My Latest Article on Atheism at “The Christian Post” appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Despite the pessimism of many Christians, the world is improving

Theories of the millennium attempt to interpret the reference to a one thousand year period of peace in Revelation 20:1-6. There are three main interpretations: premillennialism, amillennialism, and postmillennialism. While there are many differences between these three views, the one difference we can note here is that each is characterized by a particular interpretation on the trajectory of history.

Premillenial Pessimism: Premillennialists tend to be pessimistic in that they anticipate that the world will continue to become more unjust, chaotic, and opposed to the Kingdom of God until there is a final cataclysmic confrontation between the forces of good and evil. (The millennium will commence only after this spiral into destruction.)
Amillennial Realism: Amillennialists tend to be realistic in the sense that they anticipate a future that is neither overly optimistic nor pessimistic. Rather, good and evil will continue to occur together like the proverbial wheat and tares growing in the field. (On this view, the millennium is understood to represent the time between Christ’s first and second comings.)
Postmillennial Optimism: Finally, postmillennialists tend to be optimistic, as they anticipate a general increase in justice, order, and the virtues that exemplify God’s kingdom through history until that kingdom is finally established in its fullness. (On this view, the millennial period is a future period of continual improvement that we gradually work toward in history.)

At the beginning of the twentieth century, postmillennialism was popular in large part because it seemed to be reflected in the progress of western civilization in science, technology, and culture.

The Rise of Pessimism

Then things changed; the world was torn apart by a world war, a global influenza pandemic, a devastating economic collapse, and finally another horrific global conflict, one which ended with the smoldering horrors of Nazi concentration camps and two expanding mushroom clouds over Japan. Suffice it to say, by the end of World War 2, the narrative of continual progress into the future appeared to be hopelessly out of touch.

Since that period, Christians have abandoned postmillennialism in favor of various forms of amillennialism or premillennialism. Within North America, a particular form of premillennialism — that which is known as dispensationalism — has become enormously popular. Although it only dates to the 1850s, it was popularized in the Scofield Reference Bible (1909) and later in the writings of would-be end times prophets like Hal Lindsey, not to mention the notorious novels of the “Left Behind” series.

Suffice it to say, many Christians today are deeply imbued with the pessimism of premillennial assumptions. By contrast, postmillennialism is widely dismissed as false and utterly implausible. Theologian Shirley Guthrie provides an eloquent summary of the current sentiment:

“Early in the twentieth century we fought the war that was supposed once and for all to ‘make the world safe for democracy.’ Is the world better off now than it was then? Is there any less hatred, greed, brutality, or equally cruel indifference among human beings now than there was a thousand years ago? Is it realistic to hope that even in the next thousand years we will reach the point at which there will be no more wars or rumors of wars, injustice, poverty, crime, oppression of minorities, the physical and psychological crippling of children  as a result of the inhumanity of their elders?” (Christian Doctrine, 373)

The World is Getting Better

Pessimism is so common among Christians these days that statements like Guthrie’s are rarely challenged. But the fact is that his claim is not only dubious: it’s patently absurd. Just consider this question again:

“Is there any less hatred, greed, brutality, or equally cruel indifference among human beings now than there was a thousand years ago?”

The answer is, yes, of course! Consider, for example, the issue of torture. During the Bush administration, there was a serious debate about the use of waterboarding and whether the practice constituted torture. But notably, everyone assumed that torture was wrong, and thus supporters of waterboarding attempted to defend the practice by arguing that it didn’t constitute torture. (For example, they claimed that for an action to constitute torture, it must produce deep tissue damage. This is false, but regardless what is notable is that the defenders of the practice assumed they needed to show that it didn’t constitute torture.)

Such a debate would be inconceivable in the medieval period where torture was widely practiced. Consider, for example, the Judas Cradle. This was a truly terrifying contraption, an iron pointed stool upon which …

Actually, never mind, I’ll spare you the details of the Judas Cradle. Just take my word for it when I say that the Judas Cradle makes waterboarding look like a day at the beach.

Countless other examples could be given that show a decrease in hatred, greed, brutality, and/or cruel indifference. Even two centuries ago people in the western world defended the barbarism of owning other human beings. A century ago women were denied the vote. Four decades ago people with physical deformities could be denied service under regional “ugly laws”.  Twenty years ago virtually nobody worried about buying eggs from “free-range” hens. And yet, in each of these cases there is now a moral awareness, a compassion, a care, that was inconceivable in an earlier time.

When I speak to audiences on the topic, I borrow (and modify) a thought experiment from John Rawls. If you could be born into a society without knowing your gender, race, socio-economic status, or physical ability, would you rather be born into North American in 1800, 1900, or today? The question answers itself. Of course you’d prefer to be born today and that’s because on countless metrics you recognize western society is, despite all its faults, nonetheless orders of magnitude more humane and just today than in these earlier periods. To add in medieval Europe to the equation and the evidence of progress becomes even more obvious.

Still, what about those brutal world wars and all the atrocities that came with them? Doesn’t that provide evidence for historic pessimism? The short answer is, no. Just as a particularly cold winter in one region doesn’t provide evidence against the overall trend toward global warming, so particular atrocities like the two world wars does not provide evidence that the world is not improving overall. But don’t take my word for it. Steven Pinker argues from the data, whilst focused in particular on the decrease in violence, in his book The Better Angels of Our Nature.

Pessimism Bias

Given that it is so patently absurd to suggest that there has not been a notable decrease in hatred, greed, brutality, and cruel indifference since the Middle Ages, one can’t help but wonder how Guthrie would think otherwise?

It seems to me that there are two factors at play. The first is selection bias. When you begin with a negative premillennial assumption then you look for evidence of societal decline and you ignore or downplay evidence that does not fit the pattern.

Second, I suspect that Guthrie exhibits privilege bias. Guthrie was a Caucasian male Presbyterian theologian (d. 2004). From that position of relative privilege, it is not surprising that he might be less aware of the obvious progress in the treatment of alleged criminals, slaves, women, ethnic minorities, the mentally and physically handicapped, and so on.

Nonetheless, the fact remains that the general progress is undeniable. Whether it provides evidence for postmillennialism can be debated. But it certainly provides evidence against the pessimissm of premillennialism.

For more on this topic, you can read my article: “Many Christians think the world is getting worse. Are they right?”

And to go into depth on the decrease in violence, read Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature.

The post Despite the pessimism of many Christians, the world is improving appeared first on Randal Rauser.

I had a Twitter exchange with a Trump supporter … and we made progress

It all started about a day ago when Michael Brown posted a tweet that made a plea for civility. I agreed with the sentiment while also lamenting the fact that the president would not follow that excellent advice. This prompted a response from a fellow named Moses who took issue with my reference to Trump: “The reason liberals hate this president is because he fights back…”

This, of course, is false. Those who disagree with Trump (whether “liberal” or otherwise) have many excellent reasons to take issue with the man. So I responded to Moses’ tweet by listing some of those reasons.

“Some reasons Trump faces criticism: he objectifies and sexually assaults women; cheats on his wife; sexualizes his daughter; defends white supremacists & wife beaters; attacks free press; admires dictators; habitually lies; mocks & bullies people; violates emoluments clause.”

Moses replied that I was “so wrong on every point!”

I replied by taking up the challenge and defending my initial points that Trump objectifies and sexually assaults women (including his own daughter(s). I then listed six examples of Trump objectifying/dehumanizing/sexualizing women and invited Moses to reply to my defense of the claim.

At that point, Moses chose instead to make his exit. (You can lead a horse to water…)

However, the exchange was not done. At this point, another Trump supporter named “Joel” took up the baton. Joel’s response to my litanty of sexism and misogyny was to argue that Obama was no better than Trump. The evidence? Obama had once allegedly “flirted’ with the Danish Prime Minister at Nelson Mandela’s memorial service.

I responded that Joel had committed the fallacy of false equivalence. Even if one concedes that Obama engaged in an inappropriate flirtation on that one occasion, that was not comparable to Trump’s history of sexist and misogynistic comments and behavior, including the 22 women who accuse him of sexual misconduct and assault.

We then went back and forth on a few additional comments until Joel conceded my basic point about false equivalence:

I don’t recall disagreeing with your point to begin with. I think he is reprehensible, as was his predecessor, but for different reasons. Supporters of any recent president have overlooked their faults. Having said all that, I concede your initial point.

— Joel Nadel (@joelthedisciple) April 23, 2018

I give Joel deserved credit here. While my earlier interlocutor (Moses) had disappeared as soon as he was asked to reply to evidence, Joel was willing to stick it out and admit my basic (but nonetheless important) point. To be sure, there are likely still chasms that separate Joel and me. But in this modest Twitter exchange, we did find at least one important point of agreement. And in our day of loud voices and hardened opinions, that’s something.

The post I had a Twitter exchange with a Trump supporter … and we made progress appeared first on Randal Rauser.