Thursday, November 5, 2009
Seven Questions
From Philip Clayton:
People have asked me to post the questions from the paper I presented at the Darwin Festival — the paper to which Dan Dennett responded in his verbal comments and in his blog on Dawkins’ website. Here’s the excerpt from the paper:
Sample Big Questions
It is not difficult to list the “big questions” in the biology-theology discussion over the 150 years since Darwin published On the Origin of Species. Consider just these seven:
• Is there directionality to evolution? If so, is it a sort of directionality that we should speak of as progress and, if so, why?
• Is this directionality (if it exists) purposive? That is, is it a sort of progress that is analogous to cases of intelligent agents bringing about changes in the empirical world?
• Obviously evolution produces emergent structures, functions, and behaviors. Can these emergent properties be fully (sufficiently) explained in terms of laws, properties, and dynamics occurring at lower levels of organization and at earlier stages in cosmic history? To what extent do explanations given at the level of the emergent properties and dynamics themselves constitute an irreducible part of the scientific results?
• Among the corollaries of the recent debates on emergent complexity is the (still unsolved) question: what is the relationship of biology to physics? This question continues to be unresolved, and more turns on it than is often realized.
• Biologists often complain that physicists overestimate the power of their discipline to answer the deepest and most interesting biological questions. Is it possible that we are similarly guilty of overestimating the significance of our results for explaining distinctively human behaviors, cognitions, symbols, and ideas? What is the role of the human sciences (psychology, sociology, and cultural anthropology) as special sciences; do they supplement the biological sciences in understanding human thought and behavior? If they do, as I think, how, why, and under what rules does this work?
• In addition to the obvious similarities of Homo sapiens to other animals, what are the distinctive features of our species? How are those features to be understood philosophically? Which features, if any, are qualitatively different from the other species? How did such qualitative differences arise, and what is their significance? In particular, what are the contributions of evolutionary psychology and what are the inherent limitations that it faces?
• Both ethical and religious beliefs have played an important role in cultural evolution and thus, given co-evolution, have had biological effects, sometimes positive and sometimes negative. Can human ethical and religious convictions be fully explained within the framework of evolutionary biology? If not, why not? What are the limits of biological explanation to which this result points? What, exactly, is it that does the limiting here?
——————————————————–
What gradually becomes obvious is that these are meta-biological questions. I suggest that they are natural next questions for humans to formulate when one has understood the biological results. It is on this basis (and only so), I think, that one can understand what theological reflection entails.
– Philip Clayton
People have asked me to post the questions from the paper I presented at the Darwin Festival — the paper to which Dan Dennett responded in his verbal comments and in his blog on Dawkins’ website. Here’s the excerpt from the paper:
Sample Big Questions
It is not difficult to list the “big questions” in the biology-theology discussion over the 150 years since Darwin published On the Origin of Species. Consider just these seven:
• Is there directionality to evolution? If so, is it a sort of directionality that we should speak of as progress and, if so, why?
• Is this directionality (if it exists) purposive? That is, is it a sort of progress that is analogous to cases of intelligent agents bringing about changes in the empirical world?
• Obviously evolution produces emergent structures, functions, and behaviors. Can these emergent properties be fully (sufficiently) explained in terms of laws, properties, and dynamics occurring at lower levels of organization and at earlier stages in cosmic history? To what extent do explanations given at the level of the emergent properties and dynamics themselves constitute an irreducible part of the scientific results?
• Among the corollaries of the recent debates on emergent complexity is the (still unsolved) question: what is the relationship of biology to physics? This question continues to be unresolved, and more turns on it than is often realized.
• Biologists often complain that physicists overestimate the power of their discipline to answer the deepest and most interesting biological questions. Is it possible that we are similarly guilty of overestimating the significance of our results for explaining distinctively human behaviors, cognitions, symbols, and ideas? What is the role of the human sciences (psychology, sociology, and cultural anthropology) as special sciences; do they supplement the biological sciences in understanding human thought and behavior? If they do, as I think, how, why, and under what rules does this work?
• In addition to the obvious similarities of Homo sapiens to other animals, what are the distinctive features of our species? How are those features to be understood philosophically? Which features, if any, are qualitatively different from the other species? How did such qualitative differences arise, and what is their significance? In particular, what are the contributions of evolutionary psychology and what are the inherent limitations that it faces?
• Both ethical and religious beliefs have played an important role in cultural evolution and thus, given co-evolution, have had biological effects, sometimes positive and sometimes negative. Can human ethical and religious convictions be fully explained within the framework of evolutionary biology? If not, why not? What are the limits of biological explanation to which this result points? What, exactly, is it that does the limiting here?
——————————————————–
What gradually becomes obvious is that these are meta-biological questions. I suggest that they are natural next questions for humans to formulate when one has understood the biological results. It is on this basis (and only so), I think, that one can understand what theological reflection entails.
– Philip Clayton
What nine challenges does the church face today?
Last week thirty denominational leaders met at Claremont School of Theology for the second major meeting in the “Transforming Theology” series (see here for details). There will be various posts arising out of this fascinating meeting — stay tuned to this link for updates.
One thing the denominational leaders did agree on: “mainline” churches have undergone a steady decline in membership for several decades, and the situation has now become critical for many of the mainline denominations. (The situation in evangelical churches is different; I will address it in a separate post.) Huge numbers of congregations are now fighting for their survival, and many will close. Some experts predict that as many as two-thirds of the mainline congregations that exist today will close their doors over the coming two decades.
Why? What in the American situation has changed so radically that once prosperous churches and denominations would now be struggling in this way? Of the many causes, nine in particular strike me as especially important. (The first two points were suggested by my colleague and frequent co-author Steven Knapp, and I have quoted his words):
(1) “People no longer believe that church attendance is socially necessary, that is, necessary for the social health and perhaps even the economic survival of individuals and their family, either because churches provide the only context for social interaction or because they are necessary to the relationships on which careers and businesses depend.”
(2) “People no longer believe that church attendance provides the only or the most important means of establishing and maintaining a sufficiently strong connection with God, however such a connection is specifically understood (for example, in terms of salvation, spiritual health, a life of meaning, etc.).”
(3) Many of the institutions that once lay at the center of our society are equally endangered (Boy Scouts, Native Sons and Daughters of the Golden West, Kiwanas, Masonic groups, etc.). As a society, we generally don’t join institutions anymore; instead, we stay with family and friends, use electronic entertainment, shop, or go online. For how many people today is church coffee hour the social highlight of their week? Many people prefer to watch reality TV in order to see humans “as they really are.”
(4) The classic modes of church teaching — reciting language together and listening to a man talk for twenty minutes — are no longer effective modes of communication for Americans. (Classroom teachers today show videos, or at least PowerPoint.) For many, hymn-writing and hymn-singing no longer have the force they once did.
(5) The traditional church was a family unit. It included not only mom and dad and the three (six?) kids, but also the grandparents, aunts and uncles, etc. By contrast, today there are fissures even in the nuclear family. No longer centered on multi-generational family units, mainline churches struggle to retain their members.
(6) Most of us do not live in one place long enough to put down real roots. When three generations of your family were hatched, matched, and dispatched in your local church, that was a pretty strong magnet to keep you involved. Now families may move seven times or more before the kids leave for college.
(7) Our communities are not only continually in flux but massively diverse in their beliefs, values, and social identities. Church communities in the U.S. used to be highly homogenous; difference was dealt with by having a huge number of churches. With fewer churches left, there will now be a greater variety of income, class, education, ethical conviction and political belief in a single congregation. That makes people uncomfortable, and they are voting with their feet.
(8) Pastors today are generally not viewed as moral authorities in their communities, and theologians do not speak for and to the nation. Paul Tillich’s Courage to Be was a bestseller, and Reinhold Niebuhr was on the cover of Newsweek. Walter Rauschenbusch’s Christianity and the Social Crisis was a national bestseller for three years beginning in 1907. Church leaders and theologians no longer play that prophetic role in today’s world.
(9) We are no longer blending powerful theologies with transformative ministries in the world. Churches and denominations that are actively involved in “social justice ministries” are often unable to give a theological rationale for their actions that people find moving and compelling. By contrast, the theologies that move people tend to be more privatistic, focusing more on individual salvation and individual religious experience, or more concerned with separating the church from the world and defending the superiority of Christian belief over its competitors.
In short, the beliefs and institutions that once motivated church attendance and involvement are now under attack, and many are crumbling. Effective answers to the current situation will require us either to revivify the older beliefs and institutions or to invent radically new forms of Christian community.
One thing the denominational leaders did agree on: “mainline” churches have undergone a steady decline in membership for several decades, and the situation has now become critical for many of the mainline denominations. (The situation in evangelical churches is different; I will address it in a separate post.) Huge numbers of congregations are now fighting for their survival, and many will close. Some experts predict that as many as two-thirds of the mainline congregations that exist today will close their doors over the coming two decades.
Why? What in the American situation has changed so radically that once prosperous churches and denominations would now be struggling in this way? Of the many causes, nine in particular strike me as especially important. (The first two points were suggested by my colleague and frequent co-author Steven Knapp, and I have quoted his words):
(1) “People no longer believe that church attendance is socially necessary, that is, necessary for the social health and perhaps even the economic survival of individuals and their family, either because churches provide the only context for social interaction or because they are necessary to the relationships on which careers and businesses depend.”
(2) “People no longer believe that church attendance provides the only or the most important means of establishing and maintaining a sufficiently strong connection with God, however such a connection is specifically understood (for example, in terms of salvation, spiritual health, a life of meaning, etc.).”
(3) Many of the institutions that once lay at the center of our society are equally endangered (Boy Scouts, Native Sons and Daughters of the Golden West, Kiwanas, Masonic groups, etc.). As a society, we generally don’t join institutions anymore; instead, we stay with family and friends, use electronic entertainment, shop, or go online. For how many people today is church coffee hour the social highlight of their week? Many people prefer to watch reality TV in order to see humans “as they really are.”
(4) The classic modes of church teaching — reciting language together and listening to a man talk for twenty minutes — are no longer effective modes of communication for Americans. (Classroom teachers today show videos, or at least PowerPoint.) For many, hymn-writing and hymn-singing no longer have the force they once did.
(5) The traditional church was a family unit. It included not only mom and dad and the three (six?) kids, but also the grandparents, aunts and uncles, etc. By contrast, today there are fissures even in the nuclear family. No longer centered on multi-generational family units, mainline churches struggle to retain their members.
(6) Most of us do not live in one place long enough to put down real roots. When three generations of your family were hatched, matched, and dispatched in your local church, that was a pretty strong magnet to keep you involved. Now families may move seven times or more before the kids leave for college.
(7) Our communities are not only continually in flux but massively diverse in their beliefs, values, and social identities. Church communities in the U.S. used to be highly homogenous; difference was dealt with by having a huge number of churches. With fewer churches left, there will now be a greater variety of income, class, education, ethical conviction and political belief in a single congregation. That makes people uncomfortable, and they are voting with their feet.
(8) Pastors today are generally not viewed as moral authorities in their communities, and theologians do not speak for and to the nation. Paul Tillich’s Courage to Be was a bestseller, and Reinhold Niebuhr was on the cover of Newsweek. Walter Rauschenbusch’s Christianity and the Social Crisis was a national bestseller for three years beginning in 1907. Church leaders and theologians no longer play that prophetic role in today’s world.
(9) We are no longer blending powerful theologies with transformative ministries in the world. Churches and denominations that are actively involved in “social justice ministries” are often unable to give a theological rationale for their actions that people find moving and compelling. By contrast, the theologies that move people tend to be more privatistic, focusing more on individual salvation and individual religious experience, or more concerned with separating the church from the world and defending the superiority of Christian belief over its competitors.
In short, the beliefs and institutions that once motivated church attendance and involvement are now under attack, and many are crumbling. Effective answers to the current situation will require us either to revivify the older beliefs and institutions or to invent radically new forms of Christian community.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Philip Clayton's Transforming Theology
Just finished reading it and want to start an open discussion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
