Evidence-based Belief and Living - Part 2

I accept what I have said above but find it hard to live by in my day to day ritual of life. At what point can I have adequate confidence in my subconscious nature, if you will, to not require the processing of the evidence of every detail in my life. For example, I wake up in the morning and see that I have a pot of coffee waiting ready for me in which to drown my drowsiness. The coffee is there, yes, I see it, but what evidence is there that I should drink it. I mean really. Is there evidence that I shouldn't drink it? Is there evidence for both? Should I care? If I don't care, does this mean that I am saying that I believe moments exist in which my empirical thoughts are not required or carry less value? If so in what does the reasoning of this thesis culminate? This basically tells me that life doesn't function purely witin the realm of functional reason as it would paralyze me not functionalize me.

Thinking about religion, belief in God, more specifically Christianity, I find it very tiring to be either a Christian or an atheist. The empirical evidence may be there for both (although that would be hard to argue), but the evidence which we have at our hands is so towering that by the time you sift through it, you get to the other side only to say, "What was that detail way back on the other side? Does it contradict this bit of evidence that I am looking at here?" I mean really even if you do reach a conclusion, no one accepts a response from someone that says, "I am an atheist (or Christian for that matter), I can't quite remember all the details but I spent a lot of time working it out and I just know that the conclusion I came to led me to atheism (Christiantiy)."

Evidence-based Belief and Living

As a scientist, I accept that empirical thought provides an effective means for seeking out truth or knowledge by making hypotheses and determining if the weight of the evidence supports or does not support those hypotheses. I work within the framework of this scientific method at work daily and accept that the knowledge I gain and act upon in that setting is dependable.

I believe if I trust that this empirical type of thinking works within the lab that I have no reason to accept that its efficacy dissipates or disappears upon exiting the threshold to that lab. Realizing this, I accept that I should make decisions in my life based on critical analysis of evidence as well. This translates not only to my daily decisions but also my religious decisions.

I accept what I have said above but find it hard to live by in my day to day ritual of life. At what point can I have adequate confidence in my subconscious nature, if you will, to not require the processing of the evidence of every detail in my life. For example, I wake up in the morning and see that I have a pot of coffee waiting ready for me in which to drown my drowsiness. The coffee is there, yes, I see it, but what evidence is there that I should drink it. I mean really. Is there evidence that I shouldn't drink it? Is there evidence for both? Should I care? If I don't care, does this mean that I am saying that I believe moments exist in which my empirical thoughts are not required or carry less value? If so in what does the reasoning of this thesis culminate?

Intellilgent Design/Creationism in the Classroom

As a science teacher and as a Christian, I have very strong feelings on the issue of teaching creation and/or intelligent design in the classroom. My basic feeling is that existence of God cannot be proved and the existence of God cannot be disproved. Under the guidance of this premise, I understand that science (which is not a body of knowledge but rather a way of knowing) is not the method by which I understand and know God. On the flip side of this note, God and the scriptures I believe he is represented by are not tools created for understanding or knowing about nature and the complexities of its workings.

Being that science is a way of knowing and understanding the workings of nature, I find the underlying causation of these workings into existence-creationism, intelligent design, or not--is something which should not be addressed in the science classroom. The science classroom is a place where students learn the methods of science and the body of knowledge which has been exposed due to this way of knowing. These classes are intended to prepare students for careers in science and to have vocabulary and scientific understandings deep enough to be informed voting citizens.

I believe this whole issue stems out of fear. Fear that knowledge will kill faith or trust in God. My question is this: Is my faith in God or knowledge? Is the value I find in God diminished over time as knowledge increases? I believe that I must be careful where I teach my children to direct their faith and trust. I believe I stifle belief in God if I don't embrace scientific thought even with its flaws, and I believe I stifle scientific progress if I force it to answer questions that are unanswerable by science.

I do believe that science strives to speak towards truth about nature and its workings, but I also believe the process is flawed in many ways. This is the beauty of science. It is a process that works over time. Just as in no moment does anyone know fully all that is to be known about God, in no moment does anyone know fully all that is to be known about all of nature.

Having said that, I do not believe science should be presented as a thesis for a world without God. Along these lines, I firmly believe that parents who have strong beliefs regarding the creation of this world and how it was created play a strong role at home in regards to this issue and should regulate there where it is appropriate.

Creationism and Intelligent Design

Maybe we are coming to our senses, awakening from our slumber.
(http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1590782,00.html) Earlier this month, the Kansas state board of education discarded the last remnants of the Intelligent Design movement's political foray into the state's science curriculum.

This weekend, I was struck by a book presentation by Neil deGrasse Tyson. As part of his book, and in real life friend-of-the-court briefs, he has opined about Intelligent Design (ID). I realized that he has already put many of my beliefs on this subject into elegant words (see references below).

My beliefs are:

1. Believing that God is the origin of the universe is a safe bet.
2. Belief in (1), should not stop me from looking at what God created and how it actually works.
3. Scientists are explorers.
4. I only have the capacity to know a little bit of God. It is narcicistic hubris to think that I have the capacity to know what God has planned beyond what God has already set in motion.
5. Man has free will (re: Apple/Sepent incident).
6. God has not preordained the decisions of man. God did not take that away when Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden.
7. God is not a micro-manager.
8. Science does not have all the answers. Today's theories and hypotheses may be tomorrow's debunked examples. Theories are only as good as the evidence and experiments support.
9. ID and other creationist drivel in the science classroom is just plain lazy. As Neil points out, it has happened many times from the greatest minds. When some scientists were stumped or reached their limits, they attributed the answer/action to God.
10. Our particular universe is about 14 billion years old.
11. Our solar system is a little less than 5 billion years old.
12. After some mantle cooling, volcanic stabilization, extraterrestrial impacts, and about 1.5-2.5 billion years, some very simple life forms began to form and, after that, cells capable of photosynthesis. The photosynthesis is important because we require oxygen.
13. Sometime around 65 million years ago the dominant species was wiped out, leaving a niche for our progenitor species to emerge and thrive.
14. Either through mutation or selective breeding, an ancestral primate emerged with the capacity to vocalize complex language several million years ago.

Geologic age reference:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

Life on Earth reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/21438?fulltext=true
http://brembs.net/gould.html
=========================================
I'm frequently asked the famous chicken-or-the-egg question. Which came first? My response is quick, "the egg." The follow-up question is most likely, "but what laid the egg?" My response is always "a pre-chicken (biological chicken ancestor)." Maybe they expected God to lay the egg or snap his/her fingers to create our modern chicken from the clay (if you can assume that God has gender or appendages or even fingers to mold the 'cosmic chicken clay').

What God put into play those 14 billion years ago has come to fruition in the form of man and a wealth of other life on this third rock from the sun. Ta-Daaa! I celebrate that and cherish that, but I not so delusional as to assume that I'm the pinacle of intelligent life possible on the planet. In Neil's book presentation, he leaves the audience with an interesting hypothesis...If there is only 2% difference between our DNA and the DNA of chimps and orangutans (our closest genetic relatives), what would be the capabilities of another species that is 2% different from modern man? It's a idea that keeps him up at night. It was an idea that prompted me to write this blog.

The Perimeter of Ignorance
A boundary where scientists face a choice: invoke a deity or continue the quest for knowledge
by Neil deGrasse Tyson
http://research.amnh.org/~tyson/PerimeterOfIgnorance.php
Note: This essay is one of the chapters in Neil's most recent book, Death By Black Hole

If you prefer watching video to reading, Neil also spoke on this subject at Beyond Belief 2006. Select Session 2 at
http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/

If you just want a synopsis, here is a blog comment on Neil's presentation:
http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2007/02/neil-degrasse-tyson-intelligent-design.html