Science as Religious Theater

I recently finished a book that was not published recently. Not only was it published in 1988, it has no endorsements, despite being published by the well-known InterVarsity Press. This might have been the time when endorsements on the back cover and inside pages of books was not a wide concept or it could be no one wanted to endorse the book because it ticked off too many people.

The book is Science Held Hostage: What's Wrong with Creation Science AND Evolutionsism. Yes, AND is capitalized in the title. At the time of the publishing the three contributing authors were professors at Calvin College. After a preliminary outline, Part 1 discusses the flaws found in much of the creation science literature, identified primarily with young-earth creationism. Since there is more scientific terminology and methods in this part, it can be slow reading, unless you are into that sort of thing.

The main focal point of the authors, whether discussing the nature of a "shrinking sun," the amount of dust found on the surface of the moon, the salinity of the oceans (in terms of "residence times"), or the layers of rock in the Grand Canyon, is that the creation scientists time and again do not seem to interact with any of the body of data published by the scientific community. Standard research journals and papers are often ignored and citations often come from other creation science writings. Many of the creation science publications are also aimed more at the layperson, particularly the (Christian) home school community. This, to the authors, was an issue of integrity, something that is very important when sharing peer-reviewed data.

Of course there are young-earthers that actually do interact with much of the scientific data and still hold to the opinion that the earth is less than 10,00 years old. And believing in a young earth/universe does not automatically mean a lack of intellectual capacity. Another book that examines certain myths about science and religion has a chapter on how belief in a young-earth is not just an American phenomena, but is found also in parts of Europe and Austrailia.

A teacher is quoted as saying she is dumbfounded that some of her brightest students believe in a young earth. What caught my eye was the word "brightest." The teacher was not joking using that term, despite what some people might think (using disrespectful rhetoric, IMHO).  And it did not surprise me that students seriously committed to the Christian faith (or more widely to some sort of religious practice) would be among the bright students.  More and more I believe this to be the case as Christian private schools (primarily those operating under the "Classical" model of education) are leaving behind the general student found in public education.

Part 2 examines the philosophical presuppositions of certain scientists, among whom is the late Carl Sagan. What was once contained merely to PBS shows and in the levels of academia, seeminlgy to have broken forth like a cracked dam thanks to the Internet, is what the authors term a "blatent philosophical naturalism" (p. 128). While the authors maintain that "the domain of natural science is not being respected by those Christians, however well-meaning, who assert that the concepts of divine creation and providence are derivable from the discoveries of science," they also maintain that

"the proponents of philosophical naturalism also fail to respect the domain of natural science when they assert that it is from the results of natural science that they reach their conclusions that there is no God, or that the universe is self-existent, self-contained and self-governing." (p. 128)

It is the chapter on Sagan and the still popular series Cosmos that the authors use the term religious theater.  Watching the clip below may just make you feel as if you have entered into a sacred, holy place.

As one friend commented when I posted it on Facebook: "Dang, the clip ended just before he took an offertory and pronounced the benediction."

From the opening line of the series, the authors claim, there was

" a specific and powerful religious perspective that functioned as the framework for the interpretation of scientific and historical data. It was the non-theisitic religion of modern Western naturalism: the physical world is the ultimate reality, and natural science is the only avenue to understanding. Reality was reduced to matter alone, and a fittingly bounded respect for science was replaced by an unrestrained scientism." ( p. 160)

I find no greater statement of scientism than a later clip in Cosmos of Sagan concerning his view of the nature of the universe: "If the laws of nature are randomly reshuffled at the cusps, then it is only the most extraordinary coincidence that the cosmic slot machine has come up with a universe consistent with us." How, pray tell, is the concept of a "cosmic slot machine" derived from the methods of scientific investigation?

While the religion was Western philosophical naturalism, the theater was the production aired on public television.

"Cosmos was powerful theater that effectively maintained an aura of religious awe. The music, for example, functioned with remarkable success to maintain a mood that was haunting, mystical, ethereal, almost worshipful...The format of Cosmos bore little resemblance to what would be found in a science classroom. The content of Cosmos had considerable educational value, but in genre this television production must be classified as theater--theater with a strongly religious agenda, a subtle but nonetheless effective form of 'televangelism.'" (p. 161)

In my mind, people who develop a naturalistic worldview do not necessarily do so because of what was learned in school, but from watching television and movies. The next two clips are eminent examples of such "religious theater."

A combination of Richard Strauss' melody "Sunrise" from Also Sprach Zarathustra and the cinematography from the opening sequences of 2001: A Space Odyssey make for grand triumphalism.

It is important to remember that medium does not just carry the message, but can at the same time be the message itself. That television or the movie screen is not a neutral technology. As Neil Postman has said in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death, "Each technology has an agenda of its own. It is...a metaphor waiting to unfold." (p. 84) He adds later,

"Introduce speed-of-light transmission of images and you make a cultural revolution. Without a vote. Without polemics. Without guerrilla resistance. Here is ideology, pure if not serene. Here is ideology without words, and all the more powerful for their absence. All that is required to make it stick is a population that devoutly believes in the inevitability of progress." (157-58)

Why do people believe in a naturalistic form of evolution? Because an ape threw a bone in the air and it came down a satellite while the music of Strauss played. That may sound simplistic, but even Strauss said concerning this opus, "I wished to convey by means of music an idea of the development of the human race from its origin, through the various phases of its development, religious and scientific, up to Nietzsche’s idea of the Superman."  The article from which this quote was lifted gives an excellent summary of what Strauss meant by "means of music." The medium is the message.

A more widely-known feature of religious theater is Star Trek: The Next Generation. Space is the "Final Frontier," the place that is big enough (so we say) to contain humanity's ambitious quest for knowledge. The introduction suggests that it is not a matter of if we develop deep space travel, but when.

Personally I think the first deep-space ship should be named after the greatest of all space shuttles, Discovery.

In the end it is important to acknowledge our presuppositions and be aware of the biases that we hold. It is not surprising that our worldview will come out in our ventures into science or any other discipline. This is not a bad thing because we are whole-souled creatures. As the authors of Science Held Hostage conclude:

"The concept of creation is, we believe, a thoroughly religious matter concerning the identities and interrelationships of God, humanity, and the physical world. Furthermore, we judge that the scientific questions concerning the physical character and chronology of cosmic history belongs in a distinctly different category and deserves open-ended investigation on its own merits. As whole persons, however, we do seek to integrate these religious and scientific concerns into a single coherent worldview. In that genuinely human enterprise we place a high value on both candor and integrity." (p. 175)

One of my favorite quotes from J. Gresham Machen on science and progress beautifully sums up what I have come to believe:

"There are some of us who have become convinced that the pathway of true progress leads to the feet of Jesus Christ; that, consecrated to his service, the wonderful scientific achievements of the present day, in which we rejoice, far from being, as increasingly they are now threatening to become, the instruments of human slavery, may become the instruments of human liberty."