Michael Dowd
IAN BARBOUR: Granddaddy of This Movement
Well, last night we launched the teleseries,“The Advent of Evolutionary Christianity: Conversations at the Leading Edge of Faith,” with the elder statesman of this movement, Ian Barbour. If you missed the broadcast, be sure to click the “Listen Now” tab on the top right of the menu bar above, and listen at your convenience.
As I knew he would be, Ian was masterful!
For those unfamiliar with Ian and his work…
Ian Barbour is an American scholar on the relationship between science and religion. He has been credited with creating the contemporary field of science and religion.
He received his B.Sc. in physics from Swarthmore College in 1944, his M.Sc. in physics from Duke University in 1946, and a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Chicago in 1950. He earned a B.Div. in 1956 from Yale University’s Divinity School. Ian taught for many years at Carleton College, with appointments as professor of religion and as Winifred and Atherton Bean Professor Emeritus of Science, Technology, and Society. He has held emeritus honors there since 1986.
In his 1966 groundbreaking book, Issues in Science and Religion, Ian laid out a series of well-crafted arguments involving issues in epistemology, language, and methodology. Together, these provided conceptual common ground for the science and religion dialogue. He has been exploring these and other cutting-edge ideas ever since.
From the outset, Ian Barbour used the term “critical realism” to stand for the specific set of arguments he laid out in 1966. Most scholars in the field have adopted the term.
Ian gave the Gifford Lectures from 1989 – 1991 at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland. These lectures led to two books, Religion in an Age of Science and Ethics in an Age of Technology. In 1999 he was awarded the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion, in recognition of his efforts to create a dialogue between the worlds of science and religion. He is also the author of three other acclaimed books, Myths, Models, and Paradigms; Nature, Human Nature, and God; and Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues.
For videos of interviews with Ian Barbour conducted by Robert Kuhn for PBS, go to: http://www.closertotruth.com and in the Search box on the top right, type: Ian Barbour.
Ian lays a solid foundation for the conversations to come. He covers a lot of territory. I encourage you to listen to this interview more than once and share it with others.
Here are a few of my favorite Ian Barbour quotations from our conversation:
“The media like a good fight. They pick out the extremes and they leave out all the people in the middle who believe in both God and evolution.”
“There are important things to learn from science—that theologians need to learn.”
“Many religious insights can be reformulated within this new and exciting context offered by science—that is, in light of a 4 billion year-old Earth and a 14 billion-year universe. … The concept of God needs to be reformulated.”
I am not a very good listener, or perhaps it’s that I don’t have a very good memory after listening. I’m wondering if there will be text versions of these talks.
There were a couple of points that stood out for me from last night, and my comments are made here without further reference to the audio file, hence may not be all that accurate.
1) I was impressed with comments suggesting that the human species embodies the Universe becoming conscious of itself. Consciousness is something I have been pondering for awhile, and I’ve heard this concept expressed before. Mr. Barbour’s reference to our primate ancestors, and their social ‘consciousness’, however, was a new awareness for me, and I think I am beginning to understand this idea of the evolutionary consciousness emerging, ever so slowly through creation…and perhaps not just here on Earth.
2) Near the end of the talk, Mr. Barbour referred to the scripture reference whereby humankind is created in the image of God, and he suggested a couple of possibilities regarding the nature of this ‘image.’ What he did not mention is what I have always thought to be the main thrust of that image: creativity. As our understanding of the Universe expands, it becomes ever clearer to me that we and God are one….and the creativity traditionally ascribed to God is also a fundamental part of each human being. Some of my most spiritual moments are those when I am engaged in creative activity. But it goes beyond that. Perhaps we, being so intimately connected to the Creator, are in fact part of the creation process.
Thank you for the opportunity to stretch a bit and find parts of this message to reflect upon.
Betty,
With respect to both of your points, above, I think you’ll enjoy watching/listening to the main program I’m now delivering in all religious and non-religious settings, which is titled, “Evolutionize Your Life: Heaven Is Coming Home to Reality” – alt. title, “Deep-Time Wisdom: An Inspiring Vision of Humanity’s Future“. (I offered an early incarnation of this program at the United Nations last April, where it was also well received.)
In this program I discuss how a deep-time (science-based, evidential) understanding of human nature, death, and the trajectory of big history offers a profoundly inspiring way of thinking about our own lives and the future of our world.
If you watch it, I’d love to know what you honestly think.
Hi Betty –
As both an intentional apprentice to Jesus and an active scientist at a national lab, I find this creativity theme to indeed be a foundational element to what gives “deep-time” meaning to what is. In the metaphors of garden tending, vineyard tending, and “talent” tending, we have images of God creating both the setting and opportunity for active, responsible, engagement on the part of the human to, in a real sense, be co-creators with God. The objects of patient nurturing are invited to “pay it forward” as the expression goes. I find this strongly resonant with Paul’s sweeping perspective given in the first chapter of Ephesians. Somehow, Jesus is a singularity event which both embodies and enables this propagation of God-life to dust like me.
I found the first talk very interesting and even inspiring. Issues were opened up that have not been raised so far in a public way – accessible to the many who want to build a bridge between religion and science. The clear distinction made between science and scientism was very helpful and also the idea that our inherited image of God may need to be modified through the immense evoutionary panorama that has been revealed through the scientific discoveries of the last century, so that God is not seen as beyond creation but that the whole evolutionary unfolding process of life, including the evolution of our consciousness, is seen as the revelation of God’s presence within creation. Thirdly, I was glad that the negative influence of the idea of original sin was mentioned, that death has been seen as the punishment for sin. I have been writing about these isssues for some years now but am delighted to see them being raised in this format, inviting discussion and dialogue. So a big thank you to Ian Barbour and yourself for initiating these talks. Anne Baring
Thanks, Anne. Great to have you on board!
Michael, that was a great discussion. Thank you.
If I recall correctly, you described the scientific process in your conversation with Ian this way, “[Science is] a global enterprise that tries to discern, ‘Is this true in a measurable, empirical way, that is, is it true in a way that we can all agree no matter what our religion or philosophy or background or nationality or is it merely said to be true because some charismatic person said it or it’s been passed down for so many generations by traditions?’”
Unfortunately, our scientific communities have a tremendous bias towards materialism to the point where any legitimate scientific study which might pre-suppose a non-materialist world-view (for example after-death experiences, PSI, the placebo effect, religio-spritual mystical experiences) is taboo and will not be countenanced by “legitimate” scientists.
In your conversation with Lamoureax, you talked about dogmatic Evanglicals who, like a mantra question, “Where’s the evidence for evolution?” When the evidence is everywhere! Similarly, scientists who are grounded in a strict materialist dogma are today questioning, “Where’s the evidence for the mind/spirit/soul?” and are just as effective at drowning out research about these topics as the dogmatic evangelicals are at drowning out conversations about evolution.
I have to hand it to the people you’ve been interviewing, that they are so willing to say, from their religious foundation, that they are willing to listen to and learn from science. I wish we heard scientists saying the same thing about religion!
Great start !!! I like Betty am wondering if there will be text versions of these talks. I didn’t get well your second point on commonality. I’m adding deep time perspective to my list of Religious Naturalism concepts that most RNs buy in to.
Yes, Jerald. After the entire series is over (including the panel discussions in January) the entire thing, along with transcripts and study guides, will be made available for a reasonable price, as a package, for download or as CDs.
To me the human endeavors of science and religion spring from the same place: Wonder. It is because we have wondered about the world that we have come to know so much about how it works; and because we have wondered about our place in the world that we have come to develop expressions of purpose and meaning that are also “known,” but in an entirely different way. When our looking and our knowing lose that sense of wonder — when we conclude that we “know it all,” scientifically or religiously –then either one can deliver us to the same empty threshhold of self-satisfaction, with little opportunity to learn from one another. If, however, we find the world full of wonder, if conclusions lead to ever new questions and unfolding possibilities, then we have the opportunity to call one another forth and discover a mutual enrichment.
At the risk of being long, I also want to respond to Ian Barbour’s comments re: a reformulated concept of God by sharing a short creation story taken from one Native American tradition. While the Genesis story is man-centered — man being the final thought, the crowning achievement, given dominion, etc. — in this story man isn’t even an afterthought (though he turns out to be quite something). He forms himself, and the Creator is surprised and amazed by what has emerged from his own creation! I find this story full of meaning, and the image of the Creator and man looking out with wonder at all creation expressive of how I have come to know the world.
“Long ago, when Tabaldak finished making the world, that Great Being still had some of the dust of Creation on his hands. So, just as one does after finishing planting, Tabaldak began to brush the earth from his hands. That dirt, the dust that came from the making of all, all that came to be as Tabaldak, the Owner/Creator thought of it and made it, that dust sprinkled like rain onto the earth. There, where it fell, the earth began to move. It moved as if with breath. The shape of a head, and then a torso formed in the loose red earth. The shapes of arms and hands, of waist and hips formed. Then that shape sat up. It opened its mouth. It spoke words of greeting. These were the first words heard on the new earth, but the language was the language of the earth which had shaped itself into a being. Tabaldak understood those words.
Tell me your name, the Owner/Creator said.
I am Odzihozo, the being said. I am the One Who Gathers Himself.
You are wonderful, Tabaldak said.
Nda, said Odzihozo. It is you who are wonderful. You sprinkled the earth with the dust of creation.
Then Odzihozo looked about, wide-eyed, and Tabaldak also looked in that same way. All of creation was around them.”
I received a link to your series from a friend and just started to listen to the conversations. As a scientist and a Christian, the topic resonated with me at a deep level. I have always viewed science as a way to more deeply discover God’s presence in and interaction with the universe. I look forward to listening to the rest of the series and to find ways to express this deeply held conviction that I have had. It is very exciting to know there are many others who hold this belief. I feel like a whole new horizon is opening for me. I look forward to listening to the others conversations.
Hi Ian, Michael, and all
Thank you both for getting things going (I’m up to 13 on talks but only getting blogging now).
This conversation which I enjoyed tremendously, brought up the thoughts of nested emergence, which mutated in my thoughts to become a post entitled “The nested Storyverse” on http://wp.me/p2b5A-f0.
In brief, it’s a schema of our how our stories belong within other stories.
My impression is that Ian Barbour is a giant in his manner of thought and deliberation. In comparison, Michael Dowd is somewhat struggling and intense. Michael is generally trying to nail it down – as he uses the adjective several times “exactly” in response to Ian. Michael, I am a latecomer to this series and have much catching up to do. You’ve probably done a very good job in organizing this series and bringing it to it’s starting point. Hope that you will relax a little bit as this series goes on and really enjoy, savor, what you have created. Can you create something and enjoy it too? Not exactly, but yes you can. This tendency of yours to control and nail things down may dervive both from your military and evangelical back ground. You are a consolidator and want to move things forward. That’s a good trait, but there are others as well that you may evolve to. My thought is – just let Connie do it and sit back. Now that would take some …what?
Good noticing, Paul. I do relax quite a bit more over time. But it took me nearly a dozen to get to this place. Would have been nice to get you feedback earlier.
Good to have you on board!
Hmm …
Michael to me is above all an enthusiast (oozing god within). Passion comes before anything else. But on top of that he’s pretty eloquent and informed, and single mindedly shaping what this series is.
It’s probably all down to personality types, and how grace is evident within these. All in all its these so-called imperfections that make life and conversation beautiful.
I did not interpret Michael’s style so much as “trying to nail it down,” but more of a moderator who had the luxury of knowing who else would be contributing in ths series.
If guilty of anything, Michael is guilty of being prepared and attempting to draw out certain knowlege from each guest, with a limited amount of time to be shared with each.
Bravo!
Thanks, Dave!
Thank you for the dialogue. I am very intrigued by the discussion and I am grateful for the series and the friend who told me about it. Yet, I was hoping for some clarification on a few points.
First, “God” is mentioned numerous times but the notion is never defined or clarified to a great extent. I recognize that this would be worthy of a series in itself, but to discuss the topic requires some sort of context. What are the general assumptions or pretext that you make when referring to “God” and are you expecting those to be shared with the audience and the lecturers? What differences may exist in the definition or concept among those participating in the discussion?
Second, as the discussion proceeds, are we discussing a thesis with arguments presented in support or more a methodology for how such a discussion might proceed. For any given thesis, we can take evidence and examine its validity and review the reasonableness of arguments. For a methodology, we can review the means by which we can further explore and and share evolving perspectives so that a consensus or context is reasonably established for conducting the examination. It seems that there is as many theses as there are people but what is lacking is a methodology or set of methodologies that allow for the fruitful exchange of ideas and perspectives. I seems that we need to establish a degree of neutrality in the discussion that counters the rather personal investment in perspectives that many of us hold to including myself. In looking for a methodology that is fruitful and creative, we might actually experience the oneness of our humanity as ideas are shared openly with as much vulnerability humility and self doubt that we might allow.
Third, what are the expectations and the conditions that are evident as the discussions ensues? Is there a recognition that those who are drawn to the discussion are of a certain ilk or frame of reference and is there any implicit intention to enlarge that group or to solidify the perspectives within it? Is it fair game within the discussion to have those who voice their perspectives also state their motivations and expectations regardless or how noble or ignoble they might be? Can we risk being that open with ourselves and yo ourselves as a pretext for exploring so personal a subject?
My problem with this whole concept is that you are specifically approaching and using science as a tool to strengthen your religious point of view. That is a wrong place to start. That is NOT a role that science is designed to play. Science is a discilpline that studies natural phenomena (the construct and interaction thereof). In that, it is a simple and pure quest for truths that we cna learn about the world in which we live.
Science, in and of itself, is blind to whether this supports your belief in a god. It can only be your subjective interpretation that allows you to apply any aspect of that learning to your god(s). That is what happens when you really want the two unconnected discilplines to merge – even though you say in your intro that you want to avoid that approach; it is the only approach (i.e., merging two otherwise unconnected concepts). And the only benefit of it is to make yourself feel better about your religious beliefs. That is, hat they have more validity because they have been verified or validated by science.
This is futile. The only reason this approach is taken is that in a modern world we know that science rules – it is objective and verifiable (falsifiable). The very things that religion is NOT.
But in order to cling to an outdated, outmoded system of superstitions, you have overlaid science to give it a patena of credibility.
When Ian Barbour recognizes that Genesis is not a valid creation story, he lets the cat out ofthe bag. I am amazed that brilliant mind ssuch as his cannot make the second leap that needs to take place. That is, once you have recognized that the creation story is a myth you need to understand that the CREATOR is a myth as well. They go hand in glove.
Jim,
Actually, that’s the exact opposite of what I am doing! See here: http://evolutionarychristianity.com/blog/general/documentary-one-view-of-evolutionary-christianity/
I’m an accommodationist of a very different sort than the New Atheists rail against. To my mind, if all the world’s religions don’t accommodate to the evidence, to science, then our species is doomed.
Michael,
You mightg also wish to point out that the best science can do is to offer us two plausible answers as to the nature of creation, one is theist and one is not. Science in and of itself is incapable of choosing between these. However, logic applied to what science has already uncovered about reality can at least allow us to make a reasonable assumption as to the ultimate nature of each of the two approaches. I prefer the theistic approach as that leave open true hope under current knowledge.
Bill
The conversation between Michael Dowd and Ian Barbour truly revealed how science and religion can interact. What I found interesting was Barbour’s notion of “top down causality”. In other words, what happens at higher levels influences the lower level. Barbour discussed how the parts do indeed influence the whole, but do not necessarily determine it. Eventually what happens at higher levels requires concepts that cannot be expressed in lower level terms. This perspective led me to think about language, and how we use human language to describe our divine God. However, language itself is limited. As Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure said, language is merely a system of signs. This reveals the well-known gap between the signifier and signified. Language can logically formalize the gap, yet this gap prevents language from being reduced to one law (Kristeva, “From One Identity to Another”). Thus, there is no unified meaning. Ultimately, the language we use to describe God can never accurately embody Him. Since language is limited, our description of God is the formulation of mental concepts about Him and do not actually reveal what God is.
I also agree that our concept of God needs to be reformulated. As John Quinn mentioned in his response to Karl Giberson’s conversation, the whole Fall/Redemption theology which shaped Catholic worship was formulated out of the cosmological understanding of the world at that time. No doubt, the cosmic understanding of the world has shifted, but for some reason the understanding of God remains the same. The changes in the world necessitate a re-examination of the theological understanding of God. Michael Morwood discussed this notion at length in his book Tomorrow Catholic: Understanding God and Jesus in a New Millennium: “We as Christians need to re-image and re-language the basic truths that were packaged in the old cosmology; otherwise, our Christian religious worldview will be seen as an irrelevant museum piece in a world that is rethinking its place in the universe” (Morwood, 16).
I love the conversation. For me, it expands my faith in God because I find the truth so magificent—– so humbling…but is there a way that I can download all the these “Words”? I’d like to listen on my Nano–again and again.
It is true that religion and science can go hand in hand. Ian Barbour firstly describes the more common Conflict Model, in which we have atheistic scientists on one side and believers in God as the creator, on the other side. This is typically the model that gets publicized – yet there are people that believe in both. It seems though that this conflict will always exist because if we are to generically divide our population into these three groups: those who solely acknowledge science; those who solely acknowledge God as creator; and then those who have enough knowledge in both fields to acknowledge a coexistence of science and religion. Unfortunately, until everyone has enough knowledge in both science and theology it seems that it will be difficult to have people who can acknowledge both science and God. It is here, where education for our youth is most important. As Michael Dowd brought up in his introduction to the blog, it is important to reach our youth in these conversation – as science can gives us these descriptions of reality, which, in turn can serve to strengthen our beliefs. It is extremely important to spread this to our youth, who are tomorrow’s generation as our society is in fact growing more and more towards a secular lifestyle, one in which religion, if any, is often privatized.
What I liked most about this conversation is that Ian Barbour often refers to science as a philosophy. I don’t think many people view science as a world view, but if it is something that you choose to believe in, then it certainly fits into that category.
I do believe that science and religion can exist together – in many people, as mentioned by Michael Dowd, it already does. In fact, I think the two strengthen each other. There is undeniably something of a competition between science and religion, and anyone that is firmly in one camp is motivated to either defeat the other or reconcile the two. This leads to more and more research, theories and arguments for and against both sides. Science and religion have strengthened each other over the years, and as long as people continue to put them at odds, they will continue to do so.
Ian Barbour’s background is fascinating. Having the experience that he has, and hearing about his contributions, makes him an ideal candidate to have started these discussions. There is no question that this conversation needed to take place, and who better than a person well trained in both domains. Hearing about his own journey in trying to consolidate these two areas, is a great way to introduce this series. The intention behind this series is commendable and inspiring…The idea that science doesn’t solve everything, and neither does religion, that neither can answer every question makes it clear that these two areas need and absolutely complement each other. Thank-you for making that so very clear. Really enjoyed this conversation!
It was an eye opening experience listening to this conversation with Ian Barbour. Two comments really captured my attention in particular. The first was when Mr. Barbour said that religion can learn a lot from science and the second was, how it is important that science states that it does not deal with values. As mentioned in previous posts, it is a shame that only the Conflict Model that Barbour mentions, gets any sort of attention from the media. Atheist/scientists vs. creationist/Christians. It seems to me and I think to most that there a is a large but maybe silent majority of people who try and reconcile these views and at least incorporate some of the other, into their own vision of what progressive Christianity is. Religion does need a reformulation as Barbour puts it, to incorporate what science has taught us over the last few hundred years. It is also important to keep in mind that alone, neither is complete path to understanding and so much more meaning can be found when the two are viewed as complementary.
One of many things that interested me about this dialogue was Ian Barbour’s concept of explanatory pluralism – various explanations of the same occurrence that do not conflict with one another. This concept seems to harmonize science and religion together in a way that I have not been exposed to. Also profound was Michael Dowd’s comment that God is constantly creating every moment. This really resonates with me and I want to thank you both for the wonderful insights!