Hey folks.
I'm in Canada at the moment, and this is the first time I've had internet access while I've been here. I'll be back in ole Chicago on Monday, so I might crank out a post or two next week, but then I'll be back in my home state (North Carolina) the following week. I'll have internet access there, so I'll probably be able to post from there. Anyway, just wanted to give an update on why posts are so rare these days.
If anyone else wants to write some stuff, I'd be quite glad to see it.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Vacation
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
The Historical-Critical Method and the New Testament
I want to discuss, briefly, the historical-critical method. This is the scholarly model of research that has been dominant both in seminaries and in universities for the past several decades, and it has a long history reaching back to probably Desiderius Erasmus, though certainly to the German "higher criticism" of the Tubingen School.
What differentiates higher criticism from lower criticism? At its heart, higher criticism approaches a text (any text) with the viewpoint that it makes sense, or at least made sense originally. The higher criticism method seeks to examine the historical context of the text, to attempt to determine who actually wrote it, when, where, and how, and to compare it to other texts from the same time period. It assumes (and this is what draws the ire of many religious adherents) that each text has a human author with a particular agenda. One thing that you have to get used to is the usage of the word "agenda" in academia. It's a fairly neutral term most of the time - everyone has an agenda when writing a text, otherwise they wouldn't bother writing it in the first place. This is somewhat synonymous with "intent," but there are subtle shades of differences. The method of higher criticism wants to view each text as a separate authorial piece and examine its sources (i.e., where it gets its information from); the text's redaction (how it was edited and why); and form history (what type of literature are you examining? A war hymn? A prayer? An incantation? What are these forms histories within a community?). Essentially, the best way to examine a text is to examine its context and how it influenced the text.
Lower criticism, on the other hand, views the text itself as the best method to interpret the text. Thus, if a passage is unclear, one should search (almost) only the text itself for clearer passages which may illuminate the difficulty. Lower criticism is concerned with discovering what a text originally said before any scribal or redaction errors crept in. Thus, for example, from lower criticism we may come to understand that Matthew's quotation that the Messiah would be born of a "virgin" is an authorial error of translation - the original word in Isaiah was "young woman." From a higher criticism standpoint we would understand that the author of Matthew was working with a Greek copy of the Hebrew book of Isaiah, where the word for young woman is mistranslated as virgin (Hebrew has a word for virgin, and we have to assume that if Isaiah meant "virgin," that's what would be in the text). Likewise, we would understand that Isaiah's prophecy of a man born of a young woman to be named Immanuel who would save the kingdom was a prophecy about his own time, spoken directly to his king to give him a sign for victory - a "prophecy" that was supposed to be fulfilled in the same book. Now, this isn't to say that Christians can't reappropriate a prophecy and interpret it as meaning something other than the author of Isaiah meant it to mean, but, it gives one pause sometimes when you begin to closely examine scriptures.
Now, as for the historical-critical method, it's an outgrowth of the higher criticism school, but it certainly includes the textual criticism of "lower criticism." Here, a scholar is concerned in part with the historical information presented in a text - that is, are these stories factually accurate. There are several criteria that help us determine whether or not a story is likely to be historically/factually accurate, but for right now I want to concern myself with a brief analysis of some of the stories in the New Testament.
First off, there is a huge difference between the devotional reading of scriptures and the critical reading of scriptures. The devotional reading tends to view the text as at least divinely inspired and offering significant meaning and instruction in one's life. Devotional reading tends to be "vertical," that is to say, when you read a text for devotion, you read one book at a time, all the way through. Or, alternatively, you pick and choose passages from books about the same event to create a syncretic story. The problem with this approach is that when you read straight through one book and then move on the text, you are likely to skip over inconsistencies or contradictions and mentally adjust to make them all fit together. Most religious adherents would be familiar with this by example - if I ask you to relate to me the story of the birth of Jesus, many people will relate a story along the lines of - "An angel came to Mary, told her she would conceive God's son. Mary and Joseph went down to Bethlehem from Nazareth to participate in a census declared by Caesar Augustus. He was born in a manger, shepherds and wise men came to witness his birth. Then the family returned to Nazareth." It's an interesting story, and there are probably some divergence there - some people may remember the story of Jesus being circumcised on the eighth day. Others may recall the flight to Egypt. But here's the primary problem - the story is a confabulation of the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke. The tale, as told, is not present in either of them, but is a mixture of them both and, because of this, loses a lot of the meaning of each independent story.
This is an important lesson from historical criticism - you approach a text with the idea that the author was writing what they considered a definitive work. The author of any of the Gospels did not know that their books would be compiled into a single edition. The author of Matthew did not know that his story would be put alongside the story of the author of Luke. Each had their own ideas about what these stories meant and how to best convey them. Each emphasized or changed, or even made up, certain details to push their own agenda, quite independently of thinking they were writing books for a "Bible" that would only come centuries later. This is a point I will take up a bit later, but it's very important to realize - you have to take each book as its own text, with its own interests. This method reads "horizontally" - that is, you take each text that relates a similar tale, or talks about the same topic, and then line them up. Make a list of the important events and the order in which they go, or the important ideas, and then compare them.
So, two items I want to examine after the jump are from the New Testament - first, the birth of Jesus, and last, the death of Jesus.
So what are the circumstances of Jesus' birth? Well, first off, we have to recognize that only two Gospels even mention it - Matthew and Luke. In Mark and John, Jesus appears on the scene as a full-grown adult. Now, this actually may give us some insight into what exactly each author is trying to tell us.
First, a brief history lesson. As far as the Gospels go, Mark was likely the first written, somewhere between C.E. 50-70, depending on who you're talking to. Mark is a very fast-paced gospel and primarily is concerned with the last week of Jesus' life. Jesus teaches almost entirely in parables in this Gospel, as in the Synoptic Gospels as a whole, and has a very interesting take on the Passion narrative. Matthew and Luke came later, perhaps up to C.E. 110. We fix these dates on a couple of things - when the Gospel begins to be mentioned by churches and church leaders, and from a form of textual criticism - Matthew and Luke relate almost every story in Mark, but contain some of their own separate ones. Likewise, they both quote Mark exactly in several places, suggesting that Mark already existed for the authors of Matthew and Luke. John was the last Gospel written, probably towards C.E. 100, but maybe afterward, and is certainly the most divergent of all the Gospels. We'll get to that in a moment.
Back to the birth narratives. In Matthew and Luke, we have genealogies of Jesus through Joseph (though Luke makes explicit that this was merely "so it was thought). This bit never made terribly much sense to be, that in order to fulfill the prophecies that the Messiah would come from the House of David, Jesus had to be born to the wife of a man from the House of David, but not actually be his son, but be thought to be his son...regardless.
What is interesting is that these genealogies are different. Not only do they not line up in terms of names until King David, they differ in number as well. Matthew wants to make an important numerological point - every 14 generations something important happens (7 is the divine number in Judaism, so 14 is doubly divine). Abraham -> David -> Jesus. Well, okay, maybe. But, if you count Matthew's generations the same way, Jesus is actually the 13th generation after David. Beyond that point, however, Matthew and Luke have different end points for their genealogies, and this is the first hint that they are driving at two different goals. Matthew ends with Abraham, the father of the Jewish people. Luke ends with Adam, the father of all humans. You can begin to see a divergence of emphasis and intent merely through these genealogies. Now, the question for the historian is, can both of these genealogies be correct, as well as the authors statements about them? Well, probably not. They clearly don't agree in name or number, and Matthew is insistent on the "14 Generations" idea.
Okay, so maybe the genealogies don't mix that well, but what about the birth narrative itself? Let's take a look.
Matthew states that Mary and Joseph were pledged to be married, but she was found to be with child before they had come together. Joseph, apparently being a nice dude, wanted to quietly divorce her, but an angel appeared to him and told him she had conceived of the Holy Spirit, and to name the child Jesus (a later form of Joshua, which, in Hebrew, meant "Leader"). This, as Matthew is fond of reminding us, was in accordance with prophecy (Isaiah) so that the "virgin" would give birth to a child and he would be called Immanuel (here is another little bit that interests me - you see, in Hebrew, the idiom for giving someone a name was "call his name," or "to call." So, really, as in Isaiah, to call him Immanuel probably was to name the child Immanuel...just a bit of trivia). So, he took Mary home with him and did not have union with her until she had given birth. Where did this take place? Well, it says that Joseph took her home with him, and the next chapter tells us that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Later it says that the Magi came to the house where the child was. Clearly, for Matthew's purposes, Jesus was born in Bethlehem because his parents lived there in a house.
What does Luke say? Well, Luke begins by informing us that a census was declared by Caesar Augustus for all the Roman world, while Quirinius was governor of Syria. Well, historically, that indeed does match up. It happened in about C.E. 6. Okay. But wait...the census occurred after the banishment of Herod Archelaus and the imposition of Roman rule in Judea. This may not sound like a big deal, but remember that story from Matthew about Herod the Great ordering the murder of all male children aged two and younger, and how it forced Mary and Joseph to flee with Jesus to Egypt? Yeah, Herod the Great died between B.C.E. 5 and 4, about a decade before the census took place. Matthew is explicit that Jesus was born during Herod the Great's rule, but Luke is likewise explicit that he was born nearly a decade later. Another interesting problem. They can't both be right. At least one has to be historically incorrect.
Anyway, Luke goes on to say that the census required every man to register in the town of his ancestor's birth. Now, this is just silly on its face - imagine, Joseph, who according to Luke is living in Nazareth at the time, must return to the city of an ancestor many centuries back to be counted. Now, first of all, imagine someone told you that you had to return to the city of your ancestors for a census, someone say, even just four hundred years back. How many would know it? Granted, Judaism has a strong patriarchy, and it may be that many people know their ancestry that well, but also consider this: if you're taking a census to count population distribution and income, why would you leave the area in which you actually live and work?
Alright, so, Joseph and a pregnant Mary go from Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea and can't find an open inn, so they have to stay in a manger, where Mary gives birth to Jesus.
Here we come to another discrepancy - who came to witness the birth of Jesus? According to Matthew, it was the Magi, or wise men, from the east, who were following a "star". They tipped Herod the Great off to the whole "Messiah" thing, who tried to get them to report back to him on the location of this child. The wise men go to see Jesus and offer him gifts fit for a king, and then leave by another route to escape Herod, who then becomes enraged and orders the murder of all the boys in Bethlehem and the vicinity around the age of two or younger. Joseph has another dream and the family escapes to Egypt to wait out Herod's reign. This, of course, is in fulfillment of prophecy, so that "my Son" can be "called out of Egypt," as a parallel to the Exodus account. Now, originally Joseph was planning on returning to Bethlehem, where he lived, but when they found out that Archelaus was in power, they instead fled to Galilee and settled in Nazareth, again, to fulfill prophecy.
Luke has an entirely different story. It wasn't wise men who came to see Jesus, proclaiming him to be a king. Instead, it was shepherds, who praised him. There is no mention of Magi in this book. Likewise, there are additional narratives not found in Matthew. For one, it tells the story of Jesus being taken to the Temple in Jerusalem to be circumcised, where he is met by Simeon, a wise man who had prayed to see the Messiah before he died. Jesus is blessed by Simeon, and is likewise praised by a prophetess, Anna, who was also at the Temple (an important note - Luke puts much more emphasis on women than the other gospel writers - it is Mary who has dreams and visions of angels, not Joseph). After performing the "duties before the Lord," the family returns to Nazareth. There is no death order for babies, there is no flight to Egypt, there is no attempt to return to Bethlehem only to turn around and go to Nazareth instead. Luke also narrates that the family returned to Jerusalem every year for the Passover Feast, and thus records a story of the twelve year old Jesus teaching the elders in the Temple.
Both of these authors had a historical problem. Jesus was obviously from Nazareth, and yet, the Messiah was supposed to be born in Bethlehem. Both tried to solve it in very different ways. For Matthew, Jesus was born in Bethlehem because his family lived there, and only later settled in Nazareth. For Luke, Jesus was from Nazareth because his family lived there but was born in Bethlehem because Mary and Joseph traveled there for a census. Likewise, the birth of Jesus is attended by two very different sets of people in the two books, and for very different reasons. Matthew is very concerned about the fulfillment of prophecy and making Jesus the Jewish Messiah - he has to be worshiped and honored as a king. Luke wants Jesus as the savior of all of mankind, and thus he traces his lineage back to Adam and has lowly shepherds witness his birth. These are very different agendas and they led to different stories which, on the historical front, are impossible to reconcile with one another without doing a lot of violence to the books themselves and creating a new gospel which says something different from both Matthew and Luke.
Alright, so, on to the opposite end - the death of Jesus.
All of the gospels record something about the death by crucifixion of Jesus. But each has a different perspective about it. Let's begin with Mark. In Mark, Jesus clears the Temple after entering Jerusalem, which begins the plot to kill him. He then goes on to teach several parables and other mysteries. After the Last Supper, Jesus goes to Gethsemane to pray and is arrested. He is taken before the Sanhedrin where many people are brought in to testify against him, but he remains silent until admitting that he is the Son of Man. The Sanhedrin hands Jesus over to Pilate early in the morning. Jesus admits that he is the King of the Jews, but otherwise answers nothing. Pilate releases Barabbas, who was a member of the insurrectionists. He hands Jesus over to the soldiers, who flog him and mock him. Simon of Cyrene is forced to carry the cross. Jesus is crucified on the third hour of the day of Passover with two robbers, who hurl insults on him, and is mocked by passerbys and the Jewish people. At the sixth hour a great darkness comes over the land. At the ninth hour, Jesus calls out in a loud voice "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" and dies. At this moment, the curtain of the Temple is torn in two and the centurion at the cross says "Surely this man was the Son of God!" Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the Younger and of Joses, and Salome, and many other women are present.
In Mark, we get a picture of Jesus almost in shock - he is silent before his accusers until the end, and likewise, Jesus the deserted - Peter denies knowing him, no one stands up for him, and in the end, you have the moving cry of "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" before he dies. There is no triumphant end on the cross, merely a sentiment of desertion and death. The curtain of the Temple is ripped at the moment of Jesus' death, probably signifying the breaking of the old covenant and the establishment of a new - there is no separation between God and his people now. Likewise, the centurion, reversing the previous two episodes of mocking, recognizes Jesus as the Son of God (note, this is a formal title and can be applied to many people, as could Messiah).
In Matthew and Luke we have a bit of a different story. Let's look first at Matthew, then Luke.
In Matthew, Jesus clears out the temple, teaches several parables, has the Last Supper on Passover (as in Mark), goes to Gethsemane to pray, is arrested, and brought before the Sanhedrin. He is mocked and accused, and he only admits to being the Son of Man. Then he is beaten for blasphemy. Jesus is taken before Pilate, again refuses to answer, and Pilate releases Barabbas, after the Jews call for the blood of Jesus to be on their hands. Pilate hands Jesus over to the soldiers, who flog him and mock him and take him to be crucified. Simon of Cyrene is made to carry the cross. The robbers, the elders, and the passerbys all mock him. From the sixth hour to the ninth hour a darkness comes over the land. At the ninth hour, Jesus cries out "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me," and dies. At the moment of his death, the Temple curtain splits in two and many graves broke open. Holy people who had died rose out of the graves and appeared to many people in the city. The centurion remarks "Surely he is the Son of God," and many women were watching in the distance, including Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's sons.
This account is mostly similar, save for the earthquake and the saintly zombies bit. But, again, this is the synoptic account, we expect it to be mostly similar. Let's check out Luke as well.
In Luke, Jesus cleans out the temple, takes on some challenges to his authority, teaches parables, including telling them that "this generation will not pass away before all these things have happened," (and I don't see how you could get much more explicit than that), and has the Last Supper on Passover. Jesus goes out to the Mount of Olives "as usual," and prays. He is arrested and taken to the house of the high priest. The guards mock him and beat him. He is taken before the elders and the teachers of the law. He states that they would not believe him if he told them, and then admits to being the Son of Man. They formally indict him for blasphemy. They take Jesus before Pilate and accuse him of speaking against taxes and of being King. Pilate asks, and Jesus affirms that he is the King of the Jews. Pilate learns that Jesus is from Galilee and so sends him before Herod, who has jurisdiction over that district. Herod is pleased to see him and asks for some miracles to be performed. Jesus is silent. Then the soldiers and Herod begin to mock him and send him back to Pilate. Pilate says he sees no basis to kill Jesus, so he will punish him and release him. The elders demand that Pilate kill Jesus and release Barabbas. They take Jesus away to be crucified. Simon of Cyrene is made to carry the cross. Jesus asks that people not mourn for him, and instead mourn for themselves. They crucify Jesus on the placed called the Skull, and he asks God to forgive them, for they know not what they do. Two criminals are crucified with him, one who hurls insults on him, the other argues that Jesus has done nothing wrong. Jesus tells that one that he will be with him in paradise on the same day. From the sixth hour to the ninth hour a darkness came over the land. Then the curtain of the Temple was torn in two. Jesus called out with a loud voice "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit." Then he dies. The centurion at the cross says "Surely this was a righteous man." The women who had followed him from Galilee stood at a distance.
Clearly there are differences here. Jesus responds to some of his accusers, and he is taken first to the high priest, then before the elders, then to Pilate, then to Herod, and then back to Pilate. Both Pilate and Herod find him innocent. Jesus on the way to the crucifixion is calm and collected, telling others to mourn for themselves. There is no feeling of being forsaken on the cross, instead, he commends his spirit into God's hands. The temple curtain is not torn after the death, but before, giving further emphasis to the entire point behind Luke's narrative - Jesus was innocent. The Temple curtain here probably represents a rejection by God of the decision, or perhaps the people. The centurion does not recognize Jesus as the Son of Man, but, more importantly for Luke, as a truly innocent man.
Lastly, we come to John, where the most significant differences lie. To begin with, Jesus clears out the Temple at the beginning of his ministry, not at the end. There are several trips to Jerusalem. The last one being the triumphal entry. Jesus predicts his death and before the Passover Feast washes his disciples' feet. Jesus gives several long discourses (typically of John, Jesus does not teach in short parables or aphorisms, but instead extended speeches. Also, unlike the synoptic Gospels, in John, Jesus does not speak primarily about the Kingdom of God, but instead about himself - the origin of all the "I am" statements). Jesus then prays for himself, his disciples, and all believers, before being arrested. He is taken before Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year. The high priest questions Jesus, who responds very openly. He is struck and bound and then sent to Caiaphas the high priest and then to Pilate in the morning. This is all before the Passover Feast, which would occur the coming night. Pilate argues that Jesus should be judged according to the Jew's own laws, they respond that they have no right to execute him. Pilate questions Jesus, who gives several theological replies, including, importantly, that "My Kingdom is not of this world....But now my kingdom is from another place." Pilate releases Barabbas. Jesus is flogged and mocked. Pilate again brings Jesus out and says that he has no basis to kill him, but the Jews demand it. Pilate tries to release him, but the Jews increasingly demand his death. John is very clear - it was the day of Preparation of Passover Week. Carrying his own cross, Jesus is led to Golgotha, and is crucified with two others. Near the cross stood Jesus' mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When he saw them there, he said to his mother "Dear woman, here is your son," and to the disciple, "here is your mother." Later, knowing that all was completed, and to fulfill Scripture, Jesus said "I am thirsty" and was given a sponge soaked in wine vinegar. Jesus then said "It is finished," bowed his head, and gave up his spirit.
This account is incredibly different from the others. But, of course, this also reflects John's theological views. You see, for Mark, there is some evidence to say that Jesus was the "adopted" Son of God. There is no birth narrative to tell us this, and the first mention of that term is when Jesus is Baptized, when God recognizes him as his son. For Mark, and for the other synoptic Gospels, Jesus was indeed a very special person, come to proclaim the Kingdom of God, which would occur after a great cataclysmic change. This cataclysm, however, would merely divide earthly kingdoms. Paradise, the Kingdom of God, would occur on earth. It was not a heavenly kingdom to which we would ascend, but a paradise on earth. Likewise, Jesus may be God's son, but it is equally clear that he is a man, separate from God, perhaps adopted by God, perhaps born of some supernatural conception by a virgin. However, Jesus' mission was to be the early indicator of the first appearance of the Kingdom of God on earth - he performs miracles to show its early manifestations, but is killed, perhaps as the sacrifice for the sins of many. Matthew and Luke hold fairly similar views, and Luke at least makes explicit that the Kingdom is coming soon, or has already begun to appear.
The situation is a bit different for the author of John. John begins his narrative by describing the Logos and God. The Word. The Word was with God, the Word was God (this does not necessarily imply identity...perhaps more on that later), and the Word became flesh. In John's narrative, Jesus was pre-existent. The story is of an incarnation, not of an immaculate conception of a human. Jesus, for John, is clearly divine. Perhaps not God himself, but at least co-existent with God since the beginning. Likewise, in John, Jesus continues to proclaim his divinity and special status. Also, a major problem for the author of John is the amount of time that passed between the death of Jesus and the writing of his book. Most, if not all, of the people who had followed Jesus originally were dead. How to deal with that troubling promise that "this generation will not pass away" then? Well, John rotates the divide between this world and the Kingdom of God. Instead of being a new earthly paradise, John proclaims a heavenly paradise - an eternal life not on this world, but in heaven. Likewise, John is quite explicit on the fact that Jesus was crucified on the day of Preparation for the Passover Feast, when the lambs were slaughtered, not on Passover day. This is probably because of John's identification of Jesus with the sacrificial lamb. So, which is it? Did Jesus die on the Preparation day or the Feast day? They can't both be right.
This is but a brief entry into the kind of modern methodology that scholars of ancient texts and scriptures use, but even for so small a topic list, it provides some very interesting discrepancies between some of our supposedly best known stories and reinforces the idea that we have to let each author speak for themselves. To attempt to just mash these stories together and say they reconcile with one another really ruins the power of each one and makes one lose sight of what the author wanted to emphasize or bring to the attention of the reader. We lose the original intent and intended audience of the text when we argue that they all have to agree with one another.
So, what does this mean for believers? Not being one myself, I can say that personally I am not troubled by this kind of analysis and find it interesting to explore the meanings that ancient authors wanted to convey. For the believer who insists that their scripture is the inerrant, literal word of their god...well, this methodology, and history in general, is probably quite troublesome. For the believer who doesn't require his scriptures to be inerrant or literal, it may not pose that much of a problem. Many people ask why they were never told about these kinds of things before, but, I dunno...I suppose you could still find a lot of meaning and value in a text, regardless of its historical veracity.
If you've got a minute, tell me what you think.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
The Livelihood and Some Thoughts
I handed in my final paper today. I'm officially done with the requirements for my Masters degree. So, I figured I'd update you a little on my life.
I realize that it's a bit arrogant to think that any of you would actually care about what's going on in my life. When I started this blog, I think I seriously thought people would, or would be interested in some of the topics talked about on the blog. First time blogging naivete, perhaps. Anyway, I've reconciled myself to the reality that this blog is really more of a mouthpiece for some of the things that I, personally, find to be more interesting, or a place to scribble down a few musings as I go, and I'm okay with that. In that vein then, indulge me.
Some of you know me well enough to know what I've been doing with my life for the past little while. For those of you who don't: I finished my BA in psychology and philosophy & religion at Appalachian State University in 2007. I was accepted into the MA in Divinity (note, this is distinct from a Masters in Divinity) at the University of Chicago. I count this as a rather prestigious honor for several reasons - it's a selective school that offers a very excellent education; I've met a lot of really great people here and had the ability to expand my cognitive horizons; and, lastly, I had a lot of extra time during my coursework to take classes in another field of interest - cognitive neuroscience. Now, those of you who know me slightly less well may be saying at this point: "What the heck? YOU? In a Divinity School? But you love science and most of what you talk about is science!"
Yes, that's certainly true. I've always maintained, however, that I am not an expert. I consider myself an educated lay person, and when I don't know something, I look it up or, even better, consult with an actual expert in the field. They're nice people, and are generally willing to answer questions related to their study. A lot of scientists are like that - some are genuinely surprised that other people are even interested in their work. Now, as I said, I've also been taking classes in cognitive neuroscience/psychology, and when I'm in the lab or doing coursework there, I consider myself to be a scientist-in-training. I'm trying to pursue a Ph.D. in the cognitive sciences, but with the current economic situation and universities tightening their belts...well...it's tough. So, no, you should not consider me an expert or a "scientist" just quite yet, but I am certainly working towards that. I will never be an expert in evolutionary theory, or biology in general, that's true. However, I do consider my opinion on these matters to be among the educated lay people, and will try to direct any questions I cannot answer to someone who actually has had that sort of training.
More below...
So why did I pursue a Masters in, essentially, religious studies? Well, that's a bit of a tough one. I deeply appreciate the historical-critical method of investigating scripture, for one. This is the method that is taught in most divinity schools and even seminaries in the country. It is not devotional - that is, it does not attempt to exam the text for life lessons or absolute truths. Instead, you learn about the text - who wrote it, when, why, and how. You learn that scriptures were written by particular people at particular times for particular reasons. Thus, you also come to understand that some doctrines cherished by you or others may not have originally been in the text you're so committed to. For instance, the doctrine of the divinity of Christ or the Trinity are not present in the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament. Tom Sheepandgoats, a guy that I've had fairly frequent contact with, is fond of pointing out some of this information in support of Jehovah's Witnesses having a more probable and better translation of Scripture in these cases, at least. This point, I will certainly grant to him - the Jehovah's Witnesses are right - these doctrines are later insertions. However, we would still disagree as to the actual existence of God and all the rest. Tom, if you're reading this, I don't mean this in a pejorative sense, but an apt analogy would be for when I come into contact with people who believe in Scientology or Spiritualist writings - indeed, your translation may be closer to the original or what was originally intended by the author, but, we're still arguing about things that are unlikely to be true anyway.
Yes, indeed, I am an atheist. Or at the very least, a very strong agnostic (not in the sense of thinking that no one could ever have knowledge about God, but more in the sense that I think it's incredibly unlikely, but I simply do not absolutely know). So why am I studying in a divinity program? Well, for one, I was once a very committed believer. I have that as a personal part of my history, and indeed it has influenced my later life. I likewise find religious belief and behavior utterly fascinating. True or not, religions have been some of the most important motivators for human behavior in all of history. A very, very, very minor point was that I was tired of hearing people complain about people like Dawkins and Dennett by saying "Oh, they don't consider the advanced theological opinions," mostly from theologians. Personally, I have studied these opinions, and the reasons behind them, and I find them utterly unsatisfactory. Part of me wants to understand the psychology behind belief, but I've also come to realize in pursuing this degree that I really want to focus on the scientific fields more and pursue cognitive neuroscience as a career.
I'm also getting married. I'm engaged to someone who makes me happier than I have ever felt, and I feel wonderfully blessed (in a non-deity way) to have met her and to be with her. To think that out of all the billions of years of the universe, out of all the possible people who could be here in my or her place, out of all the trillions of things that could have been different so that we would never have met...to have our particular molecules come together here, at the same place and the same time, is truly wonderful and astounding. Some would call this a religious experience - in the sense that it is awe-inspiring and wonderful, then indeed, yes, I would agree. But I need no God behind it to make it so wonderful. Some would complain that this is the monk mistaking the finger pointing for the moon. I would say that these people are more ones who want to argue that the elephant's wings are its most noble and glorious quality.
I want to say, briefly, that I actually don't have that much against religious belief or behavior, so long as it does not interfere with other peoples' freedoms. I understand the motivation, the drive, behind witnessing to others, and to an extent, the desire to make into law your own position. I have been there, but I also came out of it and realized how terrible it really was. Here's the essential problem for a democracy though - how can you have a successful democracy, and democratically represent and respect those who refuse to recognize the organizing principles behind democracy? That's a post in and of itself, and I'm not going to get into here. All I'm going to say is that I am strictly opposed to people trying to legalize their own opinions and make illegal any other opinion on the basis of a faith statement. I would make that statement stronger, and simply leave it at "make illegal any other opinion," but the actually issue is a bit more complicated, and again, I don't have the time or the desire at the moment to go into it at the moment. If a person has religious beliefs, that's absolutely fine. If they want to voice them, likewise, that's fine. But, I stress, what is also fine is if I want to argue with them over those beliefs. I am deeply appreciative for Tom Sheepandgoats. I don't agree with him on several issues, but I am very glad to have that conversation with him and come to better understand what I actually think about these issues through those conversations. Would I like to have him come to agree with me? Well, in some ways yes. In other ways, I more appreciate the dynamic of disagreement.
So, I want to leave with a few thoughts right now. I'll be posting more on interpretations of books of the bible or classical theories of religion over the summer, and whatever else tickles my fancy, but for right now, I want to ask a simple question. Why is it that we spend so much effort, time, money, and volume against foreign terrorists who want to kill American citizens, ostensibly for the freedoms that we enjoy, when we have domestic terrorists who have bombed American facilities and assassinated American citizens? Yes, I am talking about anti-abortion extremists. These guys have had a long history of violent protests, intimidation, assassinations, and bombings, culminating most recently in the death of Dr. George Tiller in Kansas. This was a tragic occurrence, and what makes it even more so is that there is no sanctioning of these extremists. When was the last time that you heard of anti-abortion advocates being killed for their viewpoints? I hope that it doesn't come to that, but it is disturbing to see entire media networks, such as Fox News, pushing the type of behavior that led to Dr. Tiller's death. Why have we not come to the conclusion that we can differ in opinions without the need for violence, and if violence occurs and seems endemic to a position, perhaps it should be watched more carefully. Now, I personally am disquieted by late-term abortions. I would personally prefer that they not happen except in life-threatening cases. However, I also believe that it is a matter between a woman and her doctor (and her god if you happen to believe in that sort of thing). My personal opinions should not take away the freedom of someone else whose situation I do not and cannot know.
In a (perhaps) related note, a question occurred to me recently while I was taking a class on Ancient Near Eastern Mythology and Magic. We have been covering magical rites in ancient Mesopotamia for the second half of the course, and the majority of these rites deal with eliminating witchcraft and the influence of witches. The majority of these rites involve creating figurines of a witch and warlock, setting up an alter and a crucible, burning incense, invoking a deity, listing the afflictions the supplicant has, accusing some unidentified person as the one causing the afflictions, imploring the deity to find and destroy these persons, burning or otherwise destroying the figurines, and then offering praise to the deity and washing oneself clean.
What interests me, beyond the rituals themselves (the incantations and other literature is quite fascinating in and of itself), is the relationship between ancient Mesopotamian witchcraft proceedings and the types of things that happened in Europe. Specifically, in ancient Mesopotamia, witchcraft is handled primarily through ritual acts. These acts are often legalistic in nature and tone, but they are directed towards an "unknown" witch, warlock, ghost, or demon. The ritual is performed, the supplicant feels better, social order is maintained, and no one is hurt. It's a relatively bloodless system. Occasionally, and I stress that, occasionally a real person would be accused of witchcraft and be brought to trial, but it was incredibly rare, as far as we know. In medieval Europe, on the other hand, witchcraft accusations were primarily directed against someone within the community and were dealt with, often, by execution. An interesting side note is the folk vampire literature in Europe - a recently deceased person's spirit would return to cause mischief and kill livestock, etc. The body would be exhumed, mutilated, and "dealt with" in an appropriate way. While perhaps disturbing, still, no one was actually hurt.
Why the difference, then? This may be an impossible question to answer. There are many factors that could be in play here. Maybe we simply don't have the relevant texts - that's certainly possible, our excavations are limited and incomplete. Maybe there are socio-economic factors underlying these differences, but what are they? Maybe there are socio-cultural factors to consider - certainly Mesopotamian cultures were very concerned with the idea of a single universal law that bound both gods and men, and they had a god, Shamash, the sun god, who saw everything and would judge every case fairly. Shamash would deal with witches righteously, destroying them through his associate Girra, basically deified fire. However, this still doesn't answer the question of why in Mesopotamia witches went unidentified, or why they didn't accuse other people in the community directly, as happened in Europe. There could be religious factors in play between the Mesopotamian religions and Christianity - Mesopotamian religions are more explicit in saying that witchcraft is not always evil and they can serve a useful purpose (at least until the later periods). And I would like to note that I am not blaming this difference on Christianity. I'm simply pointing out an observed difference and trying to offer possible suggestions which may interact with one another.
If there are any historians or other professionals in the field who happen to read this blog and can or want to comment on this issue, please feel free, I'd love to hear your opinions.
Alright kids, it's getting late and this has gone on for far, far too long. I'm going to bed. Expect more posts in the near future as I'm finally done with coursework.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
Friday, May 8, 2009
Plate Tectonics - A Theory in Crisis?
Let's talk a moment about the theory of Plate Tectonics.
Scientists have this new-fangled theory about the continents sitting on huge "plates" that slosh around all over the place and collide with one another. They even say that at one point, all the continents were all joined up together in one big piece! They say they have a lot of evidence, and let's be honest, we're not arguing that there are certain facts we can agree upon, it's simply the interpreation of these facts that we disagree with. I mean, we've all experienced earthquakes or tremors, and this kind of micromovement we can agree upon, but macromovement? The movement of entire continents? I think not! Were you there to see them move? Also, isn't the whole thing rather circular? Earthquakes occur along fault lines and we know where fault lines are because earthquakes happen there? I'm not saying we shouldn't teach plate tectonics in geography and geology classes, merely that we should teach the strengths and weaknesses of the theory, teach the controversy, and let the kids decide. After all, it is only a theory.
More below the fold...
Of course the above paragraph is mostly bullshit. Plate tectonics is indeed an accepted science, and there is a lot of evidence for it (some quite recent). The point is, the exact same argument made by creationists against evolution can in fact be used against every area of science, and this is what some of them are actually driving at. Part of the problem, for some of these people, is that science doesn't deal in proof. It deals in evidence and the most likely explanations for a series of facts.
So, to begin with, let's get a few things straight.
A fact, in science, is roughly equivalent with the idea of data (though humanity studies love to point out that data is what is "given" while a fact is "made"...thanks guys). It is an observation that can be objectively verified. For example, it is a fact that when I release an object, it falls down. It is a fact that the sun appears to rise in the east. It is a fact that earthquakes occur. It is a fact that the magnetic orientation of rocks on various continents align to a point in space as they are now, but if the continents were closer together, they would converge on the north pole. It is a fact that we have a large, though certainly incomplete, fossil record of species that seems to show transformations from one to another while preserving significant morphological, geographical, biomolecular (in some special cases), and chronological similarities. It is a fact that we have witnessed events of speciation the lab and in the wild within the past few decades. It is a fact that we have witnessed novel mutations bringing about a net increase in fitness. Several of my previous posts deal with these issues and more.
A law, in science, is a description of how certain principles operate, typically expressed in mathematics. For example, there are Newton's Laws of motion. These describe the ways that objects behave and finally pin down those really hard observations like "the harder you shove something the faster it moves." I'm not trivializing here - F=ma is a very important law, and it took us centuries to nail it down. Good going, Newton. Likewise, there is Newton's Law of Gravity - it describes to a fair degree of accuracy how two bodies of mass interact with one another in the absence of other forces. There are also laws in population genetics, a field with some notable influence in evolutionary biology. A law is not the "highest" class of scientific ideas - they are merely a subset of them. Getting a law named after you is a pretty cool thing, though.
A theory, in science, is a well-tested explanation that attempts to tie together a large set of facts and laws and explain why they are the way they are. For example, we had Newton's Law of Gravity for a long time (as well as his theory), but it failed in some important aspects, specifically with the orbit of Mercury. Also, his theory had low plausibility. It wasn't until Einstein that we understood why the planets orbit the way they do (i.e., due to the curvature of space-time), and also picked up some pretty cool new predictions, such as gravitational lensing. These predictions, a necessary component of any theory, allow for evidence supporting its veracity, but they don't "prove" a theory true. A theory never graduates into a "law" or any such thing, it either stands the test of time, or is falsified and rejected in the harsh reality of the scientific world. What works stays and gets refined over the years, what doesn't work is rejected and scorned. Sorry, them's the breaks. So, for example, we still don't say that Einstein's Theory of Relativity has been proven true - people are constantly trying to disprove it. However, so far, no one has been able to offer verifiable evidence against it. It stands thus far, but may be replaced in the future. That's one of the wonderful things about science, we go where the evidence leads us, and we're willing to change our minds. Hell, we may even win a Nobel Prize in the process. Sweet! This is also why the "just a theory" claim is so laughable. A theory is a battle-tested and hardened contentor in science. We want to teach our theories, they're the best explanations we have in the world.
Anyways, back to what this has to do with plate tectonics and evolution.
I've heard the arguments I started out with said about evolution all the time. It's really pretty trite, I must say, and five minutes with a google search or a good librarian should be able to clear up these misconcepts. Darwin proposed his theory of evolution in 1859, and within a few decades, the scientific debate over the matter was settled - Darwin was right. Now, the funny thing is, I hear people say all the time, "We have evidence for microevolution, but not macro. That's just fantasy." What makes this laughable, beyond its merely being invented by creationists, is that it comes from our rather peculiar time in history. Had we lived when Darwin first published his book, the argument would have been exactly the opposite. Darwin based his theory on evidence from palentology, biogeography, comparative anatomy, physiology, and embryology and drew a very large picture. He had no workable theory of inheritance, the "micro" of this particular scale. It wasn't until the 1950s, actually, until we had a solid model of that, which allowed for the neo-Darwinian synthesis. Since that point, Creationists have been making a huge effort to ignore or create elaborate explanations for all the evidence that had existed and continues to mount against them.
One of the more laughable comments from creationists is the "Where you there?!" question, intended to cast doubt on any scientific theory, because, as they say, it is supposed to be based entirely on "observable evidence," which for them means only which can be seen under a microscope in a lab. I'm sorry, creationists, but science is bigger and more imaginative than that. When you have a theory that allows for predictions, and can go out and test those predictions, and follow the evidence, well, that's science. For example, Neil Shubin knew that there had to have existed an intermediary between fish and amphibians. He predicted, based on the theory of evolution, when this type of creature had to have lived. He went out and found rock of that age (I may go into how geological layers are laid down, and why there is no single geological column that contains all the layers, in another post), and bam...there Tiktaalik was. More confirmation of the predictions of evolutionary theory, which goes to offer more support for evolutionary theory. Listen, if you want to say evolutionary theory is false, well, okay, you've still got to explain the facts of evolution that we've seen, as well as come up with evidence that the theory doesn't work, and supply a theory that has at least as much evidence and plausibility as evolution has going for it now.
Now, the plausibility bit is important. The old saw is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and that's true. The more prior plausibility you have, the less extraordinary the evidence you must have to make a claim believable. For example, if I am known to love cookies and tell you that I had a cookie this afternoon, you'd probably believe me. If, however, I am deathly allergic to cookies, have shown you how terrible my reactions are in the past, and then saunter in and tell you that I just got done eating twenty-three pounds of cookies, you'd probably ask for some proof or just assume I'm bullshitting you. It's the same in science - the work is still based on evidence, but the more out-there your claims, or the more it directly contradicts all the evidence we have so far, or proposes new mechanisms, the more evidence you have to have to convince people. Likewise, this is why supernatural explanations don't work - they have low prior plausibility and they are utterly untestable. Science is a field in which testing is supreme. When you say you want to insert an untestable, unnatural explanation in there, you've got a contradiction of terms.
Some people say that evolution is a circular argument - the survival of the fittest really means that whatever survives is the fittest. Well, not really. Evolution predicts the differential survival of individuals dependent on the interaction of their differential genetic and behavioral characteristics and the dynamic environment. "Fit" is not a static thing, it changes from environment to environment and from species to species. Sometimes, otherwise fit organisms die in catacylsmic events. Too bad. What you end up with the differential survival of alleles in populations. That's the important thing - evolution is about populations.
Evolutionary theory takes evidence from biology, palentology, geography, geology, chemistry, and many other fields to create a comprehensive explanation for the diversity of life forms and generate new predictions. There are significant controversies in evolutionary theory, but they're not the ones that creationists tell you about. They're about things like gradualism versus punctuated equilibrium and the overall influence of genetic drift versus natural or sexual selection. If you doubt evolution, with all the evidence for it, I would argue either you haven't done your homework well enough, have been indoctrinated against it, or should also doubt that gravity exists, that the earth is roughly spherical, that modern medicine has anything going for (as so much of it is based on evolutionary theory anyway), or that atoms exist. We're talking about the same levels of evidence here.
Anyways, look up plate tectonics sometime. It's a fascinating field, and some of the lines of evidence for it are just great. Science, people!
Lastly, a guy I've had some frequent debates with, Tom Sheepandgoats, is fond of a phrase: "Why should I listen to scientists telling me that my car doesn't work when I'm driving along in it?" It's pithy, I admit. I can understand the feeling behind it - some of science is quite counterintuitive and some of it is incredibily difficult to grasp. However, my response would be that it was in fact science and technology that built the car and explain how it works in the first place - how chemical reactions release energy stored in hydrogen bonds in the hydrocarbon fuel and powers a drive train to produce rotation in the wheels, which interacts through friction with the road to propel the car foward. In fact, it seems more the creationists who want to argue that the car can't work, even though it clearly does. They continually deny evidence put before them, or argue things along the lines that because the drive train can't steer the car or because the steering wheel can't propel the car, cars are impossible, or because they haven't personally seen any tractor trailers, they deny the possibility that tractor trailers exist, even though other people have seen them.
For one example of this, I'm going to go for radioisotope dating. You get a lot of claims about radiocarbon dating being wildly inaccurate or incorrect. For example, Kent Hovind loves to talk about living mollusks being dated to millions of years old, or shrimp, or marine seals....hmm...there's something going on here. His statements are actually true - these creatures have been dated with obviously wrong dates, but they are also incredibly misleading. In one video, Hovind even cites one of the studies he's quoting from, but he doesn't give the title - which clearly states that the paper is about fraudulent dates for mollusks and marine animals and why it happens. Listen, these creatures are filter feeders that tend to live in and feed on carbon-14 depleted environments. This becomes incorporated in their shells and bodies, and then when other marine predators eat them, they likewise absorb depleted carbon. It's true, radiocarbon dating is very inaccurate for marine organisms, and this is one of the reasons that scientists don't use it for those types of creatures! See, that's the other thing. Scientists aren't stupid. They know the limits of their tools and they're careful to describe exactly what they're doing with what and why. You use radiocarbon dating for a narrow range of materials and it has a limited time period in which it is generally accurate. Luckily, we have many other kinds of radioactive dating, all of which can be independently verified by other means. Likewise, creationists often play up the "random chance" element of evolution - the mutations. They always forget the selective elements, or the evidence that mutations can increase fitness. If you need a real-world, real-time example...let's use viruses, Influenza A H1N1, for example. There you go. Thank you, done.
That's about it for now. If you want to comment or debate any of these issues, feel free to reply. Likewise, if you see any mistakes, go for it.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Short Post on Torture
This is a very short memo, a broadside, as it were, on a position I care deeply about: torture.
I have to say, I am completely unsurprised by the recent release of information about the US's torture techniques at Guantanamo Bay, how they were approved of by high level officials, and then spread to Afghanistan and Iraq. I am completely unsurprised becase we knew about this as least as far back as the beginning of the Presidential Race, when Hilary Clinton was a shoe-in for the Democratic nomination.
I am still absolutely enraged by it, however.
Now, the classic question about the ethics of torture is basically this: What if a person has sensitive information which they are unwilling to reveal. Should you torture then? Because, let's be honest - if they have no information, then torture is obviously wrong. If they have sensitive information that you can get otherwise, then torture is wrong. The gray area is where they have sensitive information (say, of an impending attack that will kill many innocent people) and they are unwilling to give up this information.
I will take a rather unpopular stance on this, as a moral issue. As terrible as the consequences may be, as a member of a free society, I am absolutely opposed to torture, no matter the situation. I am not willing to give up liberties for a sense of security. In brief, torture has never been shown to be an effective means of getting true, and only true, information out of a subject. Second, it is possible that other means could gain such useful information. There is certainly historical precedent for this. Granted, our treatment of prisoners of war during WW II was not reciprocated by other countries. However, this only goes to show an important point. We should not be so willing to give up on human liberties and rights in return for some measure of security.
What was the purposed goal of modern terrorists? The utterly change the American way of life, to make us cower and stop doing things as we always have. To make us give up our liberties and watch our nation crumble from within. Well, on some of these points, they have completely accomplished their goals, through the actions of our administration. Though we suspected such abuses of power, we allowed our administration to defame our nation and our liberties. We gave up our basic freedoms, so that now we are observed by CC cameras, wiretaps, and other means, and in return for what? We have secret memos that are supposed to show we gained some valuable information, while we know for certain that we got a lot of lies as well. The balance is not even.
What is even more despicable is to watch some of the talking heads on the networks, especially Fox, pander to all of this - "Oh, he was put in a box with some catepillars, big deal!" No, sir, that is not the point. Regardless of whether they were actually stinging insects or harmless, regardless of whether anyone has died from these tactics, and people have, the point is that we have become a nation that tortures, or, excuse me, uses advanced interrogation tactics. I, for one, argue it is not worth it.
And what, in my view, would have been the appropriate response? After 9/11, if the owners of the land had rebuilt the twin towers exactly as they were before, that would have been an effective message. In essence, a strong "Fuck You" to terrorists who want to destroy the freedoms that America was built on and are supposed to be gaurenteed by our Constitution. This is not a libertarian rant, although I admit it may sound a bit like it. I am not arguing that our government should have no involvement in any of these matters. What I am arguing is that the government has far overstepped its bounds because we believed ourselves to be in a time of crisis. I do appreciate safety, but honestly, living in Chicago, I'm more worried about my day-to-day trips walking around and possibly being mugged or shot than being killed by a relatively small number of extremists. To me, the overstepping of the government's control and use of torture is far out of bounds.
Here's an interesting video take on it from YouTube. Likewise, Olbermann's response to Sean Hannity.
Again, this is an incredibly short post on this, and I have to get back to work. Please excuse any of the typos and horrible sentance structures...get back to it later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
