What do you think of a president who says this?
If the clip does not play, you will have to go to the YouTube home page to watch it.
By posting this, you can probably tell that I like it. About the only thing that put me off in Obama’s response was when he said that he believes in evolution. The verb believe just doesn’t make sense here. “I believe in gravity” sounds pretty funny, yes?
Some may think this to be calculated pandering. I’d like to think it genuine, if only because I’d give an eerily similar response. Without the “believe in evolution” part but complete with the interruption toward the end and the “amazed at the mystery of this universe.”
As a side note, I’m sure he didn’t intend it, but Senator Obama keeps open the possibility of there being other universes, and perhaps other civilizations by citing “this” universe, not “the” universe. It is a common perspective among scientists who are Christians that science is a way to better understand creation – both its current state and how it came to be. Personally I think science is the BEST way to learn about “this” universe.
The late Stephen Jay Gould had this idea called NOMA: non-overlapping magesteria, regarding science and religion.
In his view (and I share this view), science and religion should not be intertwined. You can’t use science to debunk God or a religion, and likewise you can’t use your faith to interpret or even use science. The two “magesteria” represent two complementary human endeavors; one a quest for empirical truth about our universe, the other a quest for morality and spirituality. The two should never combine.
While a lot of scientists do subscribe to NOMA, I’m not sure that’s what Sen. Obama is getting at, and it’s certainly not my perspective. I think what Obama means here is that science reveals more majesty about the natural world that feeds into (not separate from) his belief system. This is a risky position to take for a scientist: is science just a tool to understand God? I feel this tension commonly. But for a politician, and one who seeks to be a populist, I think this actually is a reasonable perspective. And that is if this perspective was calculated. I’d like to give him the benefit of the doubt that this statement of belief is genuine.
And if you are baffled by the link above, just ignore it. In a world that has seen the likes of Trogdor, the word majesty will never be the same… even NOMA majesty.
I have never taken much umbrage at using the phrase “believe in evolution.” While technically a faux pax it really is a common colloquial shortcut. I know that he means “I accept the facts of evolution,” he just says it in a different way.
Oh, yes, I never meant that Sen. Obama was implying NOMA; I just felt it was worth mentioning.
It’s nice of him to let us know what he thinks about evolution, creation, and science in general – since he won’t participate in ScienceDebate.
Is what Barack describes actually the opposite of NOMA? I’ve known scientists who are also religious who beleive that science and faith are all means to the same ends: to understand our world and to glorify their creator. In this viewpoint, they are intimately connected. I personally think this is a healthy way to look at things, unless it is taken to extremes (such as the Discovery Institute).
You used my punchline. π
Seriously, if modern biology is so much in doubt why ban cloning? It’s like, we don’t believe anything that these people tell us, but then again, they say they can do some seriously cool shit so we’ll believe them. Make up your mind.
Also, I noticed that evolution does not come up much when it comes to healthcare. Like when an anti-evolutionist needs a heart transplant do they pick they guy who wrote down his religious beliefs on the medical boards of the guy who memorized what they told him?
Evolution is a big, big issue in hospitals because many infections are caused by bacteria that have _evolved_ resitance to antibiotics. If it weren’t for evolution then many lives would be saved.
So, I think that this would be a good “litmus” test. If you are so dead against evolution, you should fund a hospital where people base their science on the bible, only, because the bible is the last word on everything. So they should read the bible to learn how to treat your disease. π
Also, I’d like to hear their remarks on neuroscience. Do they believe that the brain is the center of thought? If one can operate on the brain to change people’s personality, where’s free will?
How about atoms. Do they think that there are atoms? What about splitting the atom aka the nuke. Do they believe in nukes. If we are made of atoms, where is the soul?
I think that Sen. Obama being open to possibilities demonstraits his understanding that science is provisional, by which it claims have to be supported by evidence, which evolution clearly is. The regarding the possibility of the Multiverse theory although high theoretical it is still worthy of investigation and we should all leave the possibility open pending further evidence while moving forward with the current evidence.
I have very serious doubts I can say the same for Sen. McCain or his science literacy.
The problem with NOMA is that science does disprove some aspects of religious dogma. If you’re flexible enough to accept that the source material guiding your religion is not 100% correct (creation took a week, pi = 3) and you don’t see scientific method as the dictating force behind all your personal beliefs (I can only believe in what I can prove) but only within the field of science, then science and religion can go hand in hand. However, when you have to accept, because of widely accepted scientific theory, that the source material which brought religion into your life (the Bible, church doctrine, whatever item for whatever religion) then some amount of doubt as to the source’s reliability has to come to mind. For some people that’s not a problem, but for some people it can be quite difficult, if they start to feel their beliefs require the same scrutiny as their science. In this case, you just have to realize, by its nature, religion can’t be proven, so it comes down to how you feel, whether you believe or not.
I think the various churches, for many years, relied on the concept of infallibility to keep people interested. Questioning religion was like questioning gravity. Now with less geographical dispersion of the varying religions, it’s not possible to say, “This is the way things are because everyone you know says so.” Religion has to come up with new ways to keep people’s interest (and yes, if you can tell, I’m not religious but I’m not saying anything bad about religion either) and things like the Discovery Institute are a reflection of that adjustment. Hopefully it won’t get too out of hand and they’ll realize that, while I’m not sure science and morality are necessarily as detached as NOMA makes them out to be, religion is definitely outside of the realm of science. Trying to prove religion through science just sets it up to be shot down.
Evolution and Creation are one and the same. Evolution is the way the creator… created. π
I’m a firm believer in Theistic Evolution.
@ #1: I couldn’t agree with you more, except that once you gain a greater scientific understanding of the world, it gets awfully hard to continue keeping your meat and dairy separate, or to believe that Moses parted the Red Sea. Also, I would say that science has sought to keep religion off of its agenda but that Christians (and other religions to a lesser degree) feel threatened by scientific advances that become mainstream and explain what the Bible used to explain. It’s really religion courting science (as with those intelligent design pseudo-science books).
Obama’s response was a pretty stock response for any Christian rationalizing contemporary knowledge with Biblical stories. I would have taken it a step further and said that I believe most of the Bible is allegorical and literary, intended to impart symbolic truths rather than to represent science.
[…] Clashing Culture has a moderation policy, and part of the reason is that the idea is to main a meaningful dialog between us atheists and theists over the issues of science, religion and society. We have a comment sitting in the approval queue, and we haven’t decided yet whether or not to publish it. Here it is, in its entirety. (Since the commenter had no knowledge that it may be cross-posted here I won’t reveal the source.) How many powerful, influencial, moneied Creationists Pacs are there in DC? How powerful is AIPAC? Who has more power over Obama? […]