Good Lord, EVEN Dan Brown Sees It.

Say what you will about Dan Brown. Hes pretty boring, the writing sucks, his stories are formulaic and uninteresting, if not hard to believe, etc., however, even he in Parade sees that there is a religious faith under-girding what we understand as science:

Are you religious?
I was raised Episcopalian, and I was very religious as a kid. Then, in eighth or ninth grade, I studied astronomy, cosmology, and the origins of the universe. I remember saying to a minister, “I don’t get it. I read a book that said there was an explosion known as the Big Bang, but here it says God created heaven and Earth and the animals in seven days. Which is right?” Unfortunately, the response I got was, “Nice boys don’t ask that question.” A light went off, and I said, “The Bible doesn’t make sense. Science makes much more sense to me.” And I just gravitated away from religion.

Where are you now?
The irony is that I’ve really come full circle. The more science I studied, the more I saw that physics becomes metaphysics and numbers become imaginary numbers. The farther you go into science, the mushier the ground gets. You start to say, “Oh, there is an order and a spiritual aspect to science.”

Thomas Kuhn has clearly made it into pop culture.

J. Kameron Carter on Language and the Theological Roots of Scientific Classification

I have been waiting a very long time for the video of Carter’s lecture on “Language and the Theological Roots of Scientific Classification: Jose de Acosta and the Production of Modernity’s Racial Imagination.” A year in fact.

Part of the problem for the wait is that somehow I missed Scott’s alert back in March. Somehow I missed it, despite longing to share this with others. Boy I feel stupid. Anyways…

The lecture itself is incredibly helpful for understanding the modern colonial project. I cannot stress enough how crucial this lecture is for linking Carter’s thesis in his book Race to current life. I wish he’d put it in his book. But even if one doesn’t buy all of Carter’s thesis, this lecture stands on its own. Following one of the lecture’s clear implications, the colonial practice is racist because theo-scientific racial classification is part of the “inner architecture” of colonial-scientific life.

Without further delay, WATCH IT:

And the careful viewer could see me in the audience, more specifically, my better side!

Catholics and Darwin

From the BBC:

The Vatican is sponsoring a five day conference to mark the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species.

The subject is the compatibility of evolution and creation.

It is one of two separate international academic conferences being sponsored by the Vatican this year.

They aim to re-examine the work of scientific thinkers whose revolutionary ideas challenged religious belief: Galileo and Charles Darwin.

Scientists, philosophers and theologians from around the world are gathering at the prestigious Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome to discuss the compatibility of Darwin’s theory of evolution and Catholic teaching.

Christian churches were long hostile to Darwin because his theory conflicted with the literal biblical account of creation.
But the Catholic Church never condemned Darwin, as it condemned and silenced Galileo.

I am greatly annoyed by the creation/evolution debate. I hope that this is a breath of fresh air in the current, stagnant “discussion.”

Galileo and the Catholics

From the BBC, as Benedict celebrates the 400th anniversary of Galileo’s discoveries:

Galileo used his scientific methods to demonstrate that the Earth revolved around the Sun and not the other way around.

His view directly challenged the church’s view at the time – that the Earth was static and at the centre of the universe.

Galileo was accused of heresy in 1633 and forced to publicly recant his theories.

Unfortunately, this is wrong. The Catholics condemned Galileo for other reasons, namely calling the Catholic Church a liar. It wasn’t the idea that the earth was at the center of the universe — in fact, the Catholic hierarchy supposedly welcomed the discovery — it was Galileo’s insistence to immediately and widely publish his findings, rather than a slow dissemination that the magisterium wanted, and then saying the Catholics lied about the sun standing still on Joshua’s day (the final straw).

I’ll be the first to say that Christians at times can be really, really annoying and daft, especially when dealing with science and the enlightenment (particularly the Catholics… heh, sorry, I couldn’t resist). But lets first set the record straight. Its important to note that the saints of science are just as human as the saints of the church. And on the historical and theological note, perhaps we can rethink the science/religion discussion.

Moving Towards the Comedy of Death

I was thinking the other day about problematic questions in the future for theology, and I found myself fixated on the combination of human and machine (as well as technological advancement on the whole) and the theological issues this may bring up. I wondered if a creation theology could extend to machine, but that seemed like a dead end now, not all that interesting yet, and problematic as hell. What is significant and interesting is how technology does and will function.

Cultural imagination has always played an important of a role in technological development, if at the very least, fueling imagination. Today, “cyberpunk” — which includes stories and adaptations from Phillip K. Dick (and perhaps Asimov, but he did write much earlier), movies like The Matrix, and across the Pacific with the likes of Akira and Ghost in the Shell — and various other lesser known incarnations of cyberpunk seem to rule today’s mind by shaping the language of discourse around the future. Albeit, generally not a spectacular language (after all, the TV and Movie medium limits it a great deal), but at least some of the themes are important. Themes center around a dystopic future, common existential crises, and science and technology gone mad or bad to name a few. Aftermath and survival seem to be the name of the game, despite the use or integration of technology and humanity. Life is still complex and in so many ways. It hasn’t improved, oppressive structures still exist.

What interests me isn’t about the ethics of machine and humanity, its about, or against, a spirituality or faith and a way of being that incorporates soteriological machinations toward always being. Immortality is a common theme, and often even the protagonist seeks to go beyond human limits to achieve a personal, extended life or perceived “justice.” As for the real, future individual applications, they will obviously necessitate a case by case basis, for at times technology can be a legitimate improvement (i.e. wheel chair), however, the grand scheme of our creation — our technological leaps — is about saving us? Well that is a theological, anthropological narrative we must always critique.

And now for a funny story, which I promise is entirely relevant. A fellow student recently came exasperated to the information desk in the library. I along with two other fellow theology PhD students were staffing it at the time. The distressed student began with, “They’re building a dooms day device and next week they’ll switch it on!” He was referencing the large hadron collider. Now, trying to be sensitive to his needs, we all bust out laughing, or at least giggling, because we just couldn’t get over the irony of humanity blowing itself to pieces with what it hails as salvation and exploration. Granted, some of us knew a bit more about CERN and the LHC to know that most likely a black hole would not form to de-atomize our existence. And so our theological answers? 1. Go email a physicist. We’re at a University, I’m pretty sure they exist here. Still. But hurry, or they might not! 2. A Barthian notion of God’s redemption and hesed was explained. 3. In light of impending doom, and perhaps eschatological fulfillment, how will we actively continue to participate in the building of the basiliea before the new creation? How will we continue, or begin to help people based on this still relevant kingdom hope? He didn’t quite like this so much. The focus on the local, instead of litigation, and the notion that we cannot control fellow human beings seemed a bit much.

However, this is exactly what Christianity can give us in spades, the ability to laugh when faced with our death — a liberation in the acceptance of our limits. This isn’t liberation from death, but the acknowledgment of our finitude and that it is okay to be a creature. However, it does not stop there, otherwise this theology would be insensitive to what it ought to take seriously, the suffering of others. And this leads me into a follow up post in the near future about the very core of Christian existence: “The comedy of death.”

I’m all for appreciating science, but its at most a service

UCF physicist says Hollywood movies hurt students’ understanding of science

…[The UCF physicist], like many scientists across the United States, is worried that if science and math education doesn’t improve, society will pay the price. “All the luxuries we have today, the modern conveniences, are a result of the science research that went on in the ’60s during the space race,” Efthimiou said. “It didn’t just happen. It took people doing hard science to do it.”

And there is more from other conversations I’ve had:

If science and math doesn’t improve in America. You’d have to do your academia outside of America, because there won’t be one left. Its wrong to think a society won’t continue without it. There won’t be a society to support humanities.

I beg to differ. No, society won’t continue in the same way, however it will continue. In fact, perhaps it should change, for it is wrong to base society on technology. Maybe we’ll finally realize that technology won’t save us. For instance, global warming: no amount of technology will save us from the crap we’ve already pulled. We’ve damaged everything and maybe the climate can come back, but it seems that the climate will have to do that on its own and we need to give it a break. In short we’ve got to limit ourselves and not simply improve technology.

There are alternatives to burning hydrocarbons, and making petrochemicals, its just that no one wants to pay that much for them.

The climate has to and can balance itself it seems, but we on the other hand have got to show the moral back bone of restraint and sustainable living – not gluttonous consumption. We have to re-imagine what we as humans really are and our relationships with the rest of ourselves and the ecosphere. Science can’t well provide that sort of thing; science does not speculate on the nature of humanity and right relationships, rather, science observes what we are doing. In fact, science cannot do the re-imagining with any real meaning without the humanities informing where technology should go, and really, where technology is actually useful. With technology as king, then we simply buy anything technology produces. Oooh that’s good for capitalistic greed on all sorts of levels. Ultimately technology is merely a tool, not a savior. However, we see technology as savior, but then what or who is really the savior? I think we claim we are as we control the cosmos through technology, and then, what are we saving? The status quo.

Interestingly, science is a product of humanities. Historically speaking, the idea of science – observing nature – came from theology, a theology of looking at creation to see the beauty of God. For more, just go read Thomas Aquinas, yes, the thirteenth century theologian who really like Aristotle. It pays to know your history and theology. So in reality, technology is the byproduct of humanities. However, to change the relationship, and to make technology more than a by product is wrong to begin with and could use some straightening out.

Now, what the “real” problem for America in this article is, is to have technological/scientific learning outsourced. This means that economic control will move from beyond Wallstreet, or at least middle class America (or at least there will be the loss of the perception that the middle class controls). And that, that, will reak havoc on current imperial America as we know it. This is the real fear. If we don’t control the way everyone else “develops” into our “civilized” idea of life, then we don’t own those of lesser means.

But then again, globalizing technological advances will not really solve anything to begin with. The power structures will remain the same; we’re still putting technology first – saying that humanity can manipulate at will whatever it wants for the elites to live off the poor. Thus I am not really caring either way – science will continue on, and as Christians, we tell technology as savior to take a hike while we aim live simply. Damn the man and his “need” to maintain a technological control in order to maintain an unethical affluence.

There is all that, and then there is the need to admit that frankly, the church won’t be in control of who holds the power, rather, we respond to the power itself, criticizing, standing in for the poor, being the body of Christ, etc.

And that, dear reader, is a political theology.

I mean not to trivialize science, but really, where does the true objective of science and technology lay? I’m all for loving science but its at most a service. Yet, it is not a service to maintain economic imperialism or to comfort ourselves with the fake control over the grand cosmos, of which we are specks of dust.