Mere Science and Christian Faith, by Greg Cootsona: Two Case Studies: On Global Climate Change and Sexuality (Where We’re Tempted to Ask Science for Things it Can’t Deliver)

We are reviewing the book, Mere Science and Christian Faith, by Greg Cootsona, subtitled Bridging the Divide with Emerging Adults.  Today we look at the two case studies at the end of Chapter 7- Give Technology a Break– Two Case Studies: On Global Climate Change and Sexuality (Where We’re Tempted to Ask Science for Things it Can’t Deliver).  I wanted to deal with these separately, as I didn’t think they fit with the flow of Chapter 7.

We’ve discussed Global Climate Change before at InternetMonk, for example: here.  The excellent graphs provided by Bloomberg here are a good summary of the pertinent data, as they cover natural causes such as solar output, volcanic output, atmospheric ozone changes, and greenhouse gas output.  Let me repeat what I said about the difference between weather and climate:

The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere “behaves” over relatively long periods of time (see here).  So climate change is the change in AVERAGE conditions over longer periods of time.  It is not the inherent variability in weather from year to year.  That is why it is nonsense to say, “If they can’t predict the weather 10 days in advance, how can they predict the climate years ahead.”  A trend can be graphed and projected, the caveat is that the causes producing the trend stay relatively consistent.

So as a geologist, I was initially skeptical of climate change.  After all, 20,000 years ago, Indianapolis was covered by a mile thick sheet of ice.  At the end of the Permian period, it is estimated that average global temperatures may have been as high as 140° F.  But as the data continued to accumulate, the conclusion has become increasingly firmer.

As shown by the Bloomberg graphs, average global temperatures have been trending up:

And the apparent cause is the accumulation of man-made greenhouse gases:

Some questions have been raised because between 1998 and 2012, there appeared to be slowing or leveling of the upward trend, termed by some as the “Global Warming Hiatus”.  However, according to the UK Met Office, that hiatus is over, and the upward trend has resumed. 

The reason Cootsona raises this issue has to do with the generational gap in evangelical Christian’s acceptance of the science.  The emerging adult population views climate change as a critical issue that needs to be addressed.  A 2015 Pew Research Poll, the most recent on the subject, found only 28 percent of white evangelicals believed that the Earth was getting warmer because of human activity — by far the lowest percentage of any religious demographic in the survey.  Part of this reluctance on older evangelicals is the Genesis 1:28 “dominion” theology viewpoint that the earth is given to humans to use as they see fit.  There is also the influence of dispensational theology, as commenter HUG would say, the “It’s all gonna burn anyway” attitude.  Emerging adults tend to reinterpret the Genesis 1:28 theology as one of stewardship or “creation care”.  Atmospheric scientist, professor of political science, and director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University, Dr. Katharine Hayhoe (born April 15, 1972), who is also an evangelical Christian says this:

“If I say that I respect God, that I love God, and God has given us this incredible life-giving planet, then if I strip every resource at the expense of my poor sisters and brothers — one in six of whom die because of pollution-related issues, who are suffering and dying today — then I’m not somebody who takes the Bible seriously,”

Most emerging adults are taking the position of Dr. Hayhoe, which I see as a good thing.  Cootsona concludes:

Global climate change represents a pressing issue that we cannot avoid, but global stewardship involves much more.  We need to concern ourselves for the poor who bear the brunt of the effects of climate change.  We also need to think about the future, for our children.  What earth will be leave for them?  When the planet over which we are stewards is threatened by our actions, we have to reevaluate all our calculations.

Cootsona then brings up the sexuality issue in regards to the Lesbian-Bisexual-Gay-Transgender-Queer (LBGTQ) concerns.  He notes that traditional positions on same-sex marriage seem questionable to emerging adults, not merely because of contemporary trends, but also in light of science.  In other words, science (as the argument goes) has offered definitive proof for sexual ethics by demonstrating LBGTQ people are “born that way”.  I don’t want to repeat the excellent series by Mike Bell on “Why I am an Ally”, nor do I wish to enter the issue of exegesis of the relevant scriptural passages.  I do want to give my opinion on what science has actually shown on the “born that way” argument and agree with Cootsona when he says that science can inform, but cannot dictate ethics. 

First of all, has science proved homosexuality is genetic like eye-color or left-handedness?  To properly answer that question, I believe one must understand the difference between “inherited” and “heritable” characteristics.  Inherited means directly determined by genes (a gene is a locus [or region] of DNA that encodes a functional RNA or protein product, and is the molecular unit of heredity).  Common examples of inherited traits include hair, skin and eye color, hair type, finger and toe length, dimples, freckles, body type, height, hand dominance, and ear shape.  A heritable trait is most simply an offspring’s trait that resembles the parents’ corresponding trait.  It is a predisposition; a liability or tendency to suffer from a particular condition, hold a particular attitude, or act in a particular way.  Let me illustrate with an example.

Suppose we want to answer the question: Is there a gene that causes people to grow up to be basketball (BB) players?

·         We conduct twin studies and find if one twin is a BB player the other is statistically likely to be one too.

·         We do a family study and find BB playing runs in families.

·         Autopsies on dead BB players find their brains are different.

We conclude:

·         There is a high concordance rate of BB playing in twins.

·         Family studies show BB playing “associated” with certain genes (tallness, long arms and fingers, quick reflexes, muscular-skeletal structure for good jumping)

·         Brain studies show a difference in BB vs. non-BB brains.

We call Sports Illustrated and say:  “Our research indicates BB playing is strongly heritable and associated with certain genes.”  But they write: “New research proves BB playing is inherited and caused by genes.”

A similar situation has occurred with homosexuality.  For example, researcher Gene Hamer (July 1993 in Science) conducted a “linkage study” of families.  He looked for variation in genes and determined whether that variation was more frequent in families that share the trait.  He correlated a particular genetic structure with a behavior trait.  But then the Media reported a “gay gene” was found.

Hamer was asked if homosexuality was rooted solely in genetics, he replied:

“Absolutely not.  From twin studies we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited.  Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors… not negate the psycho-social factors.”  Scientific American, November 1995, page 26.

Simon Levay (1991 in Science), did autopsies on men’s brains and reported an area was twice as large in the brains of homosexuals.  However:

·         No validation of sexual orientation was conducted

·         No control of drug use vs. non-drug use

·         Scientists now know the brain’s structure changes with use – just like athletes have bigger muscles.

Some people claim twin studies show a >50% concordance rate (more than half the time if one twin is homosexual the other is too).  However, identical twins have identical genes so concordance should be 100% if the trait was inherited.  Also the “50% concordance” study was a “recruited” study where twins were recruited from GLB associations.  But “registry” studies (where the cohort or group was random and observed) showed a concordance rate of 38%.

So the bottom line is that, while science shows there is no “gay” gene that one inherits, there is a genetic predisposition to same sex attraction; it is not simply a “matter of choice”.  No one chooses to have same sex attraction, it a complicated mixture of heritable characteristics and environmental and psycho-social factors, that are still, by no means, completely understood.

Which means, as Cootsona concludes, and I agree, ethical deliberations should not look to science as the final arbiter of truth.  To integrate faith and science doesn’t mean a monologue of science.  Same sex attraction should be put into the larger context of biological predestination.  Are we “nothing but” our genes?  Do our genes fully determine our behavior?  Cootsona says that genetic determinism, especially given the freedom Christ promises us, is insufficient for a Christian sexual ethic.  Again, I tend to agree.  The LBGTQ issue for evangelicals cannot be adjudicated by science alone.  As Mike Bell has set the example, it will be by gracious understanding, seeking to act Christ-like, scriptural exegetical honesty, and above all, the humble intent to treat one’s neighbor as oneself.  Any other attitude will assuredly cause loss of interest in the majority of emerging adults in that expression of Christianity.

Mere Science and Christian Faith: Bridging the Divide with Emerging Adults, Chapter 7- Give Technology a Break

We are reviewing the book, Mere Science and Christian Faith, by Greg Cootsona, subtitled Bridging the Divide with Emerging Adults.  Today we look at Chapter 7- Give Technology a Break.  In this chapter Cootsona makes the case that we must limit technology’s reach and find God at the center of our lives.  He quotes Psalm 131:2:

But I have calmed and quieted myself, I am like a weaned child with its mother; like a weaned child I am content.

There, at the center when we’re calmed, we find “Christ in us, the hope of glory” (Colossians 1:27).  He notes Sherry Turkle, who has written such books as Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other, and Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age.  Turkle asserts technology can invade true human community and often prevents authentic conversation and empathy.  She also asserts that technology and education don’t always mix well together; online courses, while increasingly common, don’t substitute for the often messy learning that human relationships bring.  It is particularly true with emerging adults, who were given screens to quiet them as fussy babies.  Such early training is sticky and recalcitrant.  He says this persistent use of technology can lead to anxiety—back to “cell phone addiction”—and emerging adults seem the most vulnerable.

Turkle says a view of the world as “apps”—the idea that some app for our smartphones will lead us to the solution to all our problems—has developed.  The app way of thinking starts with the idea that actions in this world will work like algorithms: certain actions will lead to predictable results. But human relationships are unpredictable, chaotic, and complex—that’s what makes them both frustrating and exultant.  Cootsona says:

This “app thinking” can affect us relationally and spiritually.  We think we can manage people neatly, and if things go awry, we simply shut down that person’s “app” or “doc”.  But when we do this, we treat human beings impersonally—like they’re simply an extension of our smartphone—and this may alter the way we approach another personal relationship—namely with God.

Greg also points out that almost all commercial forces see the use of technology by emerging adults as positive since it helps sell products.  The power of social media marketing particularly and Internet use generally, along with the devices that employ them is immense.  Technology displacing people from their jobs is nothing new since the auto industry put the buggy whip industry out of business.  Nevertheless, one has to wonder the effect on employment in the retail sector as online shopping replaces stores, and stores replace checkout clerks with banks of self-checkout stations.

Greg thinks that particularly worthy of the church’s attention is “transhumanism”, a term coined in 1967 by Julian Huxley referring to the belief that the creation, development, and use of technology will improve human physical, intellectual, and psychological capacities.  Greg’s friend, theologian Ted Peters, who has studied transhumanism thinks he sees an Achilles heel:

Transhumanist assumptions regarding progress are naïve, because they fail to operate with an anthropology that is realistic regarding the human proclivity to turn good into evil… and they are overestimating what they can accomplish through technical innovation.

He thinks there are two issues to extract here.  One is whether faith is endemically recalcitrant towards progress.  The second is we cannot slavishly succumb to a gospel of technological salvation.  Riffing on Jesus and “the Sabbath made for man”, Greg says technology was made for us, not us for technology.  Father Stephen Freeman notes some of the dangers of technology.  From Father Stephen Freeman: 

“Changing the world,” under a variety of slogans, is the essence of the modern project. Modernity is not about how to live rightly in the world, but about how to make the world itself live rightly. The difference could hardly be greater. The inception of modernity, across the 18th and 19th centuries, was marked by revolution. The Industrial Revolution, the rise of various forms of capitalism, the birth of the modern state with its political revolutions, all initiated a period of ceaseless change marked by winners and losers. Of course, success is measured by statistics that blur the edges of reality. X-number of people find their incomes increased, while only Y-number of people suffer displacement and ruination. So long as X is greater than Y, the change is a success. The trick is to be an X.

The ceaseless re-invention of the better world rarely takes stock of its own actions. That large amounts of any present ruination are the result of the last push for progress is ignored. It is treated as nothing more than another set of problems to be fixed. As the fixes add up, a toxic culture begins to emerge: food that cannot be eaten; air that cannot be breathed; relationships that cannot be endured; safety that cannot be maintained, etc. As the toxicity rises, so the demand for ever more action and change grows, and, with it, the increase in violence (of all types). The amount of our human existence that now requires rather constant technological intervention is staggering.

In the Apostle Paul’s time, he was concerned that disciples would be lured away from the simplicity of the gospel in Christ by secret religious knowledge.  He warned that “knowledge puffs up” (1Corinthians 8:1) and warns the Colossians:  “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.” (2:8). So, today, do we also have to worry that “information overload” confuses and distracts us from what is truly important?

Is there a correlation between a drop in religious affiliation and a rise in internet use?  And even if there exists a correlation, correlation does not mean causation.  Studies also find a correlation between empathy and religious belief—that is, believers tend to show higher levels of empathy.  Can God make himself known to people despite their technological distractions and decreased empathy?  At the same time, some studies suggest that the use of technology reduces empathy, and since emerging adults are digital natives and use technology throughout the day, Greg thinks this is a particularly pertinent issue.  He thinks that interacting virtually and not in real relationships numbs our empathy.  And empathy is a virtue that must be cultivated.  In other words, he’s saying if technology decreases our empathy, and empathy is correlated with faith, maybe technology decreases our capacity for spiritual life.

Finally, he notes, physical presence in community and physical participation in the sacraments are central to Christian faith and practice.  So do virtual communities erode that experience?  Or, like I would assert InternetMonk does, can it provide an enhanced opportunity to discuss and express ideas that would never be discussed or tolerated in our “meat space” congregations.  As frequent commenter, Pellicano Solitudinis, noted last week:  “It has made a huge difference to me, knowing that I am not alone with my doubts and questions.”  Still, those of us at InternetMonk look for and long for that gold standard of koinonia as expressed in Acts 2:42-44.

They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles.  All the believers were together and had everything in common.