Subscribe to Ailbe Newsletters
Sign up to receive our email newsletters and read columns about revival, renewal, and awakening built upon prayer, sharing, and mutual edification.
History of Science
Scientific revolutions take time to solidify into scientific consensus, as Dennis Danielson and Christopher M. Graney explain in “The Case against Copernicus” (Scientific American, January 2014). Only a few astronomers initially received Copernicus’ heliocentric cosmology as resolving the difficulties of Ptolemy’s view with the most current observations and data. No less a light than Tycho Brahe proposed an alternative to Copernicus’ explanation, and the question was debated for years after both men had died. Indeed, only in the early 19th century were observations recorded that resolved all the difficulties with the Copernican view and established it as the best paradigm for understanding cosmic order. To most observers no doubt the evolutionary worldview seems to be firmly set in stone (so to speak). In fact, evolutionary theory, while it explains much that happens in the natural world, is not anything like a comprehensive worldview, in spite of the fact of its having been enthroned as such, especially in the halls of academe and in public education and the popular media. We must not think that the final word has been uttered on just how far the theory of evolution should be allowed to extend. The debate continues. The Christian worldview has room for evolutionary thinking, to a point, but there is still a great need – and lively opportunity – for Christian thinkers to explain their own understanding of things and to demonstrate the overall greater reliability of the Biblical worldview.
Psychology
Don Hurley reports in Salon on the continuing efforts of scientists to find a safe drug to enhance cognitive ability (December 29, 2013). Most existing drugs only keep people awake and more alert. They do not actually improve cognitive ability. Exercising the brain regularly and strenuously tends to increase neuronic activity, according to Tracey Shors: “’Tasks that are difficult to learn are the most effective,’ Shors said. ‘If they simply exercise, they don’t retain the neurons. Learning must occur, and it must require some effort. So if you exercise, you will produce more neurons. If you do mental training you’ll keep alive more cells that you produced. And if you do both, now you have the best of both worlds, you’re making more cells and keeping more alive. The effort part is key. We need to learn things that are new, and we need to keep it challenging.’” Nicotine is also an effective brain enhancer, and may be linked to preventing Parkinson’s disease. Another form of brain enhancement is magnetic stimulation of certain sectors of the brain. This has the effect of generating more electrical activity – though – which can develop new patterns of thinking and improved cognitive skills. Scientists continue to pursue drugs, among other ways to enhance brain function, since they know the brain can be improved by various kinds of interventions. We should be encouraged, for the sake of all kinds of a Kingdom projects and activities, to keep our brains well exercised through reading, study meditation, conversation, and other demanding intellectual activities. We have a stewardship of our brains as surely as of our time, wealth, and daily opportunities. And it is not likely that any of us has managed to realize the full extent of the capabilities of the mind of Christ, which we as believers possess (1 Cor. 2.16).
http://www.salon.com/2013/12/29/sciences_obsession_the_search_for_a_smart_pill/
Monday, 12/31/13
Philosophy of Knowledge
In the ongoing debate between the humanities and science over who can know what, and how, both sides are wrong. So argues Massimo Pigliucci in Aeon (“Who knows what,” December 30, 2013). Efforts to explain everything from one or the other perspective are not convincing. Neither have attempts at “consilience” (E. O. Wilson) gotten us very far. What is needed in order to make real progress in knowledge is an ongoing dialog involving representatives from all disciplines: “The best understanding of the whole shebang that humanity can hope for will involve a continuous dialogue between all our various disciplines. This is a more humble take on human knowledge than the quest for consilience, but it is one that, ironically, is more in synch with what the natural sciences tell us about being human.” To which the theologian says, Amen, right along with the poet and the teller of folk tales. It remains to be seen whether science or the academies will be open to such a conversation, and I’m not holding my breath. At the same time, believers must continue to pursue knowledge from every vantage point and by every means, and with the hope of real progress and gains. After all, we know Him in Whom all true knowledge coheres, and He has given us His Word and Spirit to guide our investigations. We are not good stewards of this trust unless we apply ourselves diligently to articulating and practicing a comprehensive Christian worldview.
Tuesday, 12/31/13
Psychology
A lot is happening in our unconscious mind, and it exerts powerful effects on our behavior. So reports John A. Bargh in the January, 2014, issue of Scientific American (“Our Unconscious Mind”). Studies of various kinds have shown that “the unconscious asserts its presence in every moment of our lives, when we are fully awake as well as when we are absorbed in the depths of a dream.” The report is not clear about where the contents of our unconscious mind originate, or how it exerts influence on us, although some of its composition appears to originate in our tendency to mimic others, as well as in certain kinds of environmental stimuli. The challenge, if we don’t want to be hopelessly run around by our unconscious, is to understand it, recognize when it is seeking to exert influence, and then submit or resist using the best protocols of conscious thought. The Christian worldview accounts for at least some of the power of the unconscious by explaining that a “law of sin” is at work within each human being. This spiritual force or principle fosters a penchant for self-interest and naughtiness which is the result of original sin, enhanced by the cumulative effects of the sins of humankind. The way to deal with this is by the combination of grace and truth, administered in regular doses by the Spirit of God, according to the parameters of the Law of God and with a view to emulating the example (righteousness) of Jesus Christ. This may sound simplistic, compared to all the sophisticated (?) tests and trials social scientists are able to invent. But it works, and because it works – the result being that people learn to live in freedom from the tyranny of their dark and mysterious self, and are able to overcome evil inclinations with good works – Christians should not be reluctant to commend this aspect of their worldview as a help in understanding this important subject.
Wednesday, 1/1/14
Museums
Wendy Earle thinks museums are going too far in trying to engage visitors with mobile devices, social media, and a variety of “fun” apps (“Technology in museums – less is more,” Spiked, 17 December 2013). Outside consultants seem to be convincing many museum boards that the best way to make a trip to the museum fun, and to develop younger audiences, is to try to enhance the visitor’s experience with interactive instructional technology. But Ms. Earle is skeptical: “Museums do themselves no favours by trying to compete with the multimedia attractions of contemporary culture by imitating them. Museums should allow those who want to enjoy the sheer pleasure of seeing the wonderful things that people have created and discovered in the past get on with it, without the distractions of modern gadgets. When it comes to technology in museums, less really is more.” Does this have a familiar ring to it or what? Isn’t this, albeit with different adaptations of the same principle, what many churches do, and ostensibly for the same reason? But if all this “engagement” with pop culture and technology can compromise the purpose and unique contribution of a museum, what does it do for the worship of God? Further, it stifles something in the visitor which the museum minus the technology might otherwise stimulate: “technological reconstructions can obviate the challenge many visitors enjoy in museums: working some things out for themselves.” Ditto with respect to pop culture, high tech gadgetry, and other forms of engagement and “fun” in the churches. Church is not about “fun.” It’s about life, and life is about striving for the Kingdom and the knowledge of Jesus Christ, in Whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, and at Whose right hand are fullness of joy and pleasures forevermore. The way into such a life is not along the avenue of fun, but of self-denial, cross-bearing, and death to the world.
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/technology_in_museums_less_is_more/14433#.UsR2hn-9KK1
Cosmology
The quest for dark matter remains as fruitless as ever. So reports Alexander B. Fry in an article published in Aeon, 23 April 2013 (“In the dark”). The language in all these discussions of dark matter gets metaphysical very quickly: “The world we see is an illusion, albeit a highly persistent one. We have gradually got used to the idea that nature’s true reality is one of uncertain quantum fields; that what we see is not necessarily what is. Dark matter is a profound extension of this concept. It appears that the majority of matter in the universe has been hidden from us.” It’s not like dark matter, whatever it is, is rare: “...astronomers have continued to find the signature of unseen mass throughout the cosmos. For example, the stars of galaxies also rotate too fast. In fact, it looks as if dark matter is the commonest form of matter in our universe.” Dark matter is like “a parallel universe.” What if it is? Let’s see...A universe everywhere present, beyond the reach of science and its methods or tools, and that explains and sustains everything material we can see. Hmm... Mr. Fry is certainly correct when he says, “Nature plays an epistemological trick on us all. The things we observe each have one kind of existence, but the things we cannot observe could have limitless kinds of existence.” But the trick is in the nature of fallen men, who continue to insist that they and their reason are – must be – the measure of all things. Yet even this is an act of faith. So if we are to allow faith in the conversation, perhaps we should include those who are unabashed in their admission concerning what we might be able to learn – about the universe and everything in it – thought the right use of faith, lodged in a true and spiritual “universe”, and seeking the glory of God, rather than of men.
Thursday, 1/2/14
Consciousness
The problem of consciousness – what it is, where it comes from, how it works – continues to baffle scientists. The problem is that, so far, materialists have not been able to provide a persuasive model of consciousness within the limitations of their presuppositions and methodologies. Nevertheless, they are determined to nail it down, As Micheal Hanlon reports (“The mental block,”Aeon, 9 October 2013), “...the idea is taking root that consciousness isn’t really mysterious at all; complicated, yes, and far from fully understood, but in the end just another biological process that, with a bit more prodding and poking, will soon go the way of DNA, evolution, the circulation of blood, and the biochemistry of photosynthesis.” He explains, “Committed materialists believe that consciousness arises as the result of purely physical processes — neurones and synapses and so forth.” But he does not believe this approach will be ultimately fruitful: “I do not think that the evolutionary ‘explanations’ for consciousness that are currently doing the rounds are going to get us anywhere. These explanations do not address the hard problem itself, but merely the ‘easy’ problems that orbit it like a swarm of planets around a star. The hard problem’s fascination is that it has, to date, completely and utterly defeated science.” And, although science can contribute much to such investigations, yet because it refuses to acknowledge a spiritual realm and the various realities located there – such as the soul and God – or the value and reliability of revelation from that realm, its explanations of such things as consciousness (and beauty, happiness, altruism, and the like) will never completely satisfy, and may, in fact, lead to new and dangerous forms of manipulation and control.
http://aeon.co/magazine/being-human/will-we-ever-get-our-heads-round-consciousness/
Friday, 1/3/14
Political Science
The world is becoming disenchanted with the idea of revolution. This is largely a function of historical ignorance, leading to unreasonable expectations for such events as the “Arab Spring.” David A. Bell (“Inglorious Revolutions,” The National Interest, January 2, 2014) asks, “Why do most observers today seem so oblivious to the historical record of revolutions? What are the consequences of this obliviousness? And what might it actually take, in the way of concerted international action, to help revolutions like the one in Egypt take place in a way that accords better with observers’ ideal script?” He explains that the idea of revolution has evolved from that of a kind of natural and inevitable act (the Glorious a Revolution of 1688) to a drawn-out process under the direction of revolutionary actors in which normal modes of behavior are suspended (the Russian and Chinese Revolutions). The popular expectation is that a revolution should be quick, relatively peaceful, and result in democratic institutions; but this is not the way revolutions typically proceed. Disillusionment with the idea of revolution is present among those who find themselves in the midst of events: “By the late twentieth century, when the self-proclaimed revolutionary regimes of the Soviet bloc began to crumble, the dissidents who stepped into the breach generally refused the label of ‘revolution’ altogether. As the Polish Solidarity leader Jacek Kuron informed French readers in a remarkable newspaper column in the summer of 1989—as the Poles were ousting the Communists and the French were marking the bicentennial of 1789—the age of revolution was over, and a good thing too. Germans self-consciously refer to the events of 1989–1990 not as a ‘revolution,’ but as die Wende—‘the change.’” Revolutions are brought about and sustained by many factors, but the most important one for any successful revolution relates to the benefits to be realized by the population in general: “Many different factors help populations to play by the rules, and to resist temptations to crush traditional enemies or to treat the state as little more than an instrument of personal enrichment. Ingrained habits of rigid social discipline, found in such widely different societies as colonial New England and twentieth-century Japan, can serve, given the proper conditions, to dampen forms of behavior that damage democratic cooperation. Inspiring, charismatic leaders committed to such cooperation—a Washington or a Mandela—can play a critical part as well. The role of eloquently formulated revolutionary principles in inspiring loyalty to democratic institutions should not be underestimated. But these factors are rarely enough. Incentives matter hugely. Furthermore, providing a clear incentive structure is arguably just about the only possible way to ‘jump start democratic revolutions and bring them to a successful, rapid conclusion, especially in countries that have long traditions of division, corruption and intolerance.” Without popular incentives revolutions are unstable, unpredictable, and either sadly protracted or tragically brief. People in general, it seems, are not so much motivated by big ideas of the common good as by assurances of personal and material security. In this respect, it is not difficult to see how the progressive revolution in American politics is managing to succeed so well. By pandering to people's preference for security over liberty it secures followers, using them as political revolutionaries to set aside the existing order and redesign the nation’s institutions according to its own vision. Can this revolution be stopped? Not without some widespread, radical change in what people desire. That is, not without some re-ordering of the benefits people seek and the ways they go about seeking them. Historically, this has been the great contribution of seasons of spiritual awakening.
http://nationalinterest.org/article/inglorious-revolutions-9641?page=show
Saturday, 1/4/14
Sociology
Julian Baggini reviews three books addressing the social aspect of human life (“The Social Animal,” Financial Times, January 3, 2014). The problem, of course, in an age of increasing globalization, is how to extend man’s inherent sociability and need for others beyond the interests of family, tribe, race, nation, and culture to embrace the whole of humanity in a common and universal moral philosophy and consensus. Mr. Baggini summarizes his reading: “Taken together, these books show how the personal is political in ways that have not been fully appreciated. None comes up with entirely convincing solutions to problems of social co-operation, within and between nations, but all help us to understand more clearly how we must take account of our affective as well as rational natures if we are to deal with them. Emotion is not the spanner in the works of a more rational society. It is the engine that powers it, which reason must understand in order to steer it wisely.” Social and political scientists will continue to struggle with this challenge, and they will continue to be vexed by their inability to overcome our latent self-interest, the inadequacy of utilitarian ethical guidelines, and the frustration that comes from being unwilling to face up to the spiritual needs of humankind. Sin is the problem that defeats our ability to love one another and live together in peace. Christians understand this, but we have yet to demonstrate sufficient unity of the Spirit to persuade the rest of the world that our worldview has anything substantive to contribute to this challenge, or to any other pressing issue facing the planet (Eph. 4.3; Jn. 17.21).
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/39a015c6-6bc7-11e3-85b1-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2pRGvdnG0
Philosophy of Mind
David Gelertner (“The Closing of the Scientific a Mind,” Commentary, 1/1/14) offers a powerful apologetic against scientism and a merely materialist view of life and the world. He objects to computationalists (cognitivists) who want to reduce the mind and subjectivity and everything associated with these to mechanical processes, like a computer. He insists that the inner life of persons is real. It cannot be quantified and cognitivists cannot account for our emotions: “Too many [scientists] have forgotten their obligation to approach with due respect the scholarly, artistic, religious, humanistic work that has always been mankind’s main spiritual support.” They are, in fact, anti-human, as the world has always understood the essence of what it means to be human, and pro-robotic in their view of human development. As he says, “when scientists use this locker-room braggadocio to belittle the human viewpoint, to belittle human life and values and virtues and civilization and moral, spiritual, and religious discoveries, which is all we human beings possess or ever will, they have outrun their own empiricism. They are abusing their cultural standing. Science has become an international bully.” We need to make room for our subjective lives and the disciplines – art and religion in particular – that help us make sense of our inner selves. These are the disciplines that give us the greatest insight to our inner experiences and subjective truths. “Subjectivity is your private experience of the world: your sensations; your mental life and inner landscape; your experiences of sweet and bitter, blue and gold, soft and hard; your beliefs, plans, pains, hopes, fears, theories, imagined vacation trips and gardens and girlfriends and Ferraris, your sense of right and wrong, good and evil. This is your subjective world. It is just as real as the objective physical world.” So “[w]e need science and scholarship and art and spiritual life to be fully human. The last three are withering, and almost no one understands the first.” Amen.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-closing-of-the-scientific-mind/