Sceptical about Science?

I've just been struck by a post on Sam Allberry's blog, which is here if you're interested. But in his final paragraph, he says:

"...Nor is any of this exclusive to Nutritionism. As I thought through these four features, it struck me how true they are of contemporary Environmentalism, the other rising new religion of our day. I can't help feeling captive to the experts. In shrill terms we're told daily of how human carbon emmissions are driving us to the brink of an ecological apocalypse. Recycling and air-travel have become (opposite) moral absolutes. As a Christian, I am far from indifferent to the natural well-being of God's world. And yet I remain mistrustful of a scientific band whose ideology is often secularist and unacknowledged, who confer upon their theories the status of absolute truth, and therefore pillory the rising number of other scientists who do not share their assumptions and who question their findings. I don't like being a cynic, and I don't want to become one of those Christians who forever demonises "those scientists", but sometimes the experts leave us no alternative."

It's a valid point of view, that scientists generally come at a topic from an a-thiestic point of view. Indeed, many a violently anti-religion, and frequently anti-Christianity especially. But this leaves us with a quandry. Do we ignore the claims made by the mass of scientists on the basis that they come from a completely different world-view to Christians, or do we go with them?

This seems to be the root of the question, but it also seems one that has a simple solution. It's about recognising the questions that science as a tool can answer, and those it cannot.

Science is, in its fundamentals, the study of the natural world around us. Indeed, many early scientists called themselves 'natural philosophers,' presumably becuase their thoughts and ponderings were influenced by their observations of nature. (Incidently, I absolutely detest the scientific convention of capitalizing nature or biology, as in "Nature has done this.") Study leads naturally on from observation to hypothesis, from hypothesis to experiment, and from experiment to conclusion or theory.

For example, an observation is that something happens. This leads to the question "why does this happen?" and a guess - "maybe this happens becuase of this." To find out, one alters this and examines the results. Either it has an effect, or it doesn't, and after much hard work, one can draw a conclusion. Eventually, numerous conclusions may lead to a theory, and, once the theory has been tested, and shown to hold true again and again, the word is often changed to 'law.' (Laws are, of course, sometimes proven to be wrong or incomplete, such as the idea of a flat earth, or the assumption that Newtonian mechanics would hold true for sub-atomic particles such as electrons, which instead need quantum mechanics to describe them.)

In a round-and-about way, this leads me to my point. If a scientist tries to answer a question that science itself cannot answer, he is merely postulating, and his science is closer to philosophy or theology. If he tries to answer a question that science can answer, he may be correct or incorrect, but he's entitled to call his opinions 'scientific.'

Which brings us to global warming (or its absence). Firstly, although some scientists believe that the phenomenon does not exist, most believe it does. There is much observational evidence. Doesn't it seem warmer to you than it was this time 15 years ago? Birds which used to migrate seem not to bother any more. Satellite images show that the Arctic ice-sheets are shrinking rapidly. And simple experiments using a thermometer tell us that, on average, the years are hotter than they were.

So why? Here we come on the the hypothesis. The most common guess is that's it due to 'greenhouse gas' emmissions, i.e., the release of gases such as CO₂ etc. These allow sunlight to enter the Earth's atmosphere, but the reflected rays are absorbed, like the way a glass roof on a greenhouse makes the inside hotter than the outside. There is evidence to support this hypothesis. Ice cores taken show the temperature and CO₂ concentrations in the atmosphere for many thousands of years. The two cycle up and down, the temperature following the CO₂ level closely, although slightly behind. However, since the 1800s, the CO₂ levels, and the temperature, have been shooting up - and show no sign of coming down again any time soon. They're already way past where they usually got to in the 'natural' cycle. None of this is proof that human CO₂ release is causing climate change. But it's a correlation without any other obvious cause.

So what should we do? Should we argue that scientists have an axe to grind, so we'll ignore them? After all, they're scientists - they have a vested interest in science. Or should we decide to believe them, after all, they're the people who should know best? And if we decide to ignore them, who shall we believe instead?

I believe global warming is real. I believe it's at least in part caused by human CO₂ release. As an evangelical Christian I don't think this is incompatible with my worldview - after all, God made the world, and it was very good. But then came the fall, and the outworkings of that are seen all around us. Is it reasonable to expect that they would be limited to mankind's dealings with each other? As a consequence of Adam's sin, the first death is recorded in the Bible (an animal is killed to make clothes). The pattern of sin and death continues to this day. As custodians of the world, have we really made such a good job of it that this pattern will not reach a logical conclusion?

I must stress, however, that although global warming may well result in catastrophic consequences, I doubt it will signal the end of humanity. Many millions may die, species may become extinct, and whole countries become submerged. But in many ways, that's just an extension, albeit on a massive, horrific scale, of the human story ever since the time of Adam. Should we really be surprised?

So what should we do? Should we ignore it - after all, as rich Westerners we will probably be comparatively unaffected. Or should we try to act to affect it, making sacrifices if need be. Is this analogous (although not equivalent or sufficient) to repentence?

For more information, visit www.eci.ox.ac.uk.

Hats Off to Ann Treneman

It's rare that I open a newspaper (well, click on the correct button) without ending up far more depressed than before I did so. It's all so bleak. Death, murders, stabbings, shootings. Outstanding areas of countryside being turned into Tesco supermarkets. Beautiful, architecturally rich buildings being torn down to make way for yet more cheap-to build, expensive-to-buy, nasty and ugly housing. David Beckham. It's just all so bleurgh.

So imagine my surprise to find not something that not only made me smile, but actually made me laugh out loud.

Firstly, if you haven't discovered Ann Treneman, then please do so. Now. She's the political sketch writer for the Times, which, I know, makes her sound about as much fun as spending an afternoon in the company of Alan Sugar. But she's witty, quick, sarcastic and surprisingly entertaining, given that she's essentially writing about a room of aging men and women who are paid to stand up and shout at each other. Well, that's what it looks like, anyway. But today's post made me smile more than usual, so I thought I'd flag it up. Hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

The Rights and Wrongs of a Silver Ring Thing

I don't know if you read the Times, as I do, but even if you don't, you can't have missed the recent uproar in the media regarding the case of Lydia Playfoot. If you do, you may, like me, have read a spiteful article in today's paper by Martin Samuel.

To summarise, she has taken her school (soon to be ex-school) to court for refusing to allow her to wear a silver ring as an outward symbol of her decision to refrain from having sex until she is married. The ring is supplied by The Silver Ring Thing (SRT), who are an evangelical Christian group who aim to promote this behaviour, and, as part of this, members make a declaration of their intention to remain celebate until they marry. Lydia claims her human rights have been breached, and that by refusing her wish to wear this ring, the school is discriminating against Christians. After all, Muslims are allowed to wear head-scarves, and Hindus can wear armbands. The school, on the other hand, are taking the stand that whilst such dress is compulsory for Hindus and Muslims, SRT rings are not compulsory for Christians (although if she choose to wear a crucifix, this would be allowed). As such, the SRT ring is nothing more than jewelry, and has no place in the school uniform.

Now, in my opinion, both parties have some basis for their arguments. The school is unquestionably correct that SRT rings, or indeed rings of any sort, are not commanded for Christians. Lydia has a point that her decision to wear such a ring is inspired by her Christian faith, and that for her it is an outward expression of her inward convictions. For what it's worth, it seems to me that an SRT ring has a similar level of necessity for an evangelical Christian as a cross or crucifix does - in other words it's not commanded, but I suppose that people like to express their faith in such a way. Maybe both should be allowed, or neither.

But this wrangling over what constitutes a necessary part of a Christian's dress is surely jeopardising an essential part of the Christian message - that salvation, necessary to every human being, is possible through, and only through, the blood of Jesus, shed on the Cross. Faith, not works. It's what one believes that matters, not whether or not one wears a ring.

So what should we conclude? It's unquestionably the case that, in this country, Christians are, increasingly, being stopped from doing things that just a few years ago would have been ignored. It's not hard to imagine a time when I would be breaking the law by writing this article (check out the paragraph above - now, that's not very "inclusive," is it - not as "tolerant" as we like to see here...). This persecution, albeit currently barely noticable compared to that faced by Christians in other parts of the world - China, North Korea, etc etc - is to be expected. God has told us, many, many times that we should expect it.

So should Lydia be fighting this case? Or should she accept her school's authority and let it go? I honestly don't know. At some point we have to stand up for our right to worship the God of the Bible, not the God of the people. Liberal Christianity will never be banned, becuase it has no solid position. In the face of opposition it shifts to fit in. Evangelical Christianity almost certainly won't be banned in the near future outright, rather I believe we should expect "salami tactics" - an attack to come one slice at a time. Is this the beginning? I doubt it. Is this one more slice in a process that's already started? Possibly. How should we respond? I honestly don't know. Apart from prayer.

One thought, which I offer without any theological basis, is as follows. The media has almost universally condemned Lydia's position. She's been portrayed as a misguided, foolish teenager, a victim of the latest "fad" (though I doubt it's one that will appeal to many non-Christians), a pawn in a game played by her hardly impartial parents (they are Director and secretary of SRT UK). If the world (that world which Christians are called to be in but not of) is so against her, my suspicion is that we should be aligning ourselves in support of her. It's not a gospel issue, so I don't think it should be the be-all and end-all. But should we side with those whom, although light had come to them, rejected it in favour of darkness, because their deeds were evil, or with someone who, possibly unwisely, is taking a stand for her right to worship God in a biblically principled way?

House of Lords 2.0

Web 2.0 is, apparently, defined thus:

"the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform. Chief among those rules is this: Build applications that harness network effects to get better the more people use them."

In other words, it's all about user generated content, and probably the best known example is Wikipedia, where users can create and edit online articles about pretty much anything. But its influence is spread around the interweb, from reviews of books at Amazon through to the video sharing monstrosity that is YouTube.

And it's put forward as the future; which, indeed, it may well be. And that's fine, and possibly dandy, and we can all enjoy watching timeless classics such as "My Cat Falling Off the Table," starring Tiddles and directed by Mike from Lewisham. Wonderful.

And providing I'm not made to watch it, I have no problems with this. We'll leave to one side the questions of legality, copyright infringement and censorship for another post. In general, I'm ambivalent. The web is all but infinite in size and hosts content from all manner of individuals and organisations. If you want to post your thoughts online (as indeed I do here), why, be my guest. Have fun.

The problem comes in with the question of authority. In particular, what authority does information presented as fact have when the author of that information is unaffiliated with any particular source? Do you want to trust - can you trust - what Bob from Slough says about a film, a book, the debate on fox hunting, Trident, or indeed any other topic that is outside his immediate expertise?

Now I have no problems with people having opinions. I have them myself, from time to time. But I strongly hold that policy should not be made by people who know nothing more of the issue than what is presented in the media. It's why phone-ins drive me mad. It's why I snarl at the radio when I hear the phrase "why not let us know what you think about this. Our message boards are now open," or "text us your views on 80116." I'd far rather listen to informed experts offering their opinions and, that way, I can make my own. For a different example, it's why I'd rather read what the Bible has to say on something than to consider what Joe thinks about what he percieves as being the general Christian attitude to something. It's a problem, also, (albeit not the main one) with liberalism in the church. If authority comes from man, why should we listen? After all, I disagree, and I'm at least as qualified to speak about this as you are.

Which all brings me, in a round-about sort of a way, to the proposed-come-underway reform of the House of Lords. The Commons were recently asked to vote on a number of options, from 100% appointed members through to 100% elected. The rationale, it seems, is that for the house to have "credibility" with the public, the public must have a say in its composition. But this misses the point. The only possible advantage of having a second chamber in the first place is that it offers a place where bills proposed by government can be examined in greater, largely non-partisan detail. Hitherto unforseen ramifications can be identified, inconsistencies with present laws spotted, and amendments which, in general, improve matters imposed.

By what authority do the Lords do this? Because firstly they have no major political axe to grind. The majority of Lords are unpaid and cross-bench. They do not aspire to higher political office - they will never be PM or on the front bench. All of which means that, if they believe something to be a bad idea, they tend to say so. Secondly, the house tends to be able to call on true experts in the field of discussion. GM? Let's call on a scientist. Asylum? Let's call on a lawyer.

The notion of having elected peers will largely lose the first advantage. To be elected most nominees will have to be affiliated with one of the major parties. The Lords will attract career politicians rather than interested and informed observers. The expertise gained by appointment will be sacrificed for the "accountability" of public election and enhanced scrutiny. The Lords will become, in all but name, an inferior Commons.

We may as well go the whole hog and settle all debate by text vote (possibly at a premium rate. We can always make the decisions first, and just take votes for profits. After all, if it's good enough for Blue Peter...). Maybe we could call it Lords 2.0.

I'd love to know your thoughts. Text them to me.