About Me

Name: Doc Stephens
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Pro-Life? or Pro-Choice? Where is God in the Debate?

Posted by Doc Stephens on Saturday, February 09, 2008 12:58:32 PM
As I reread my last post, I was struck by the total absence of any reference to God in my arguments.  I happen to have a strong spiritual sense, one that I feel deeply--it is a faith in God that surpasses all understanding.  I also happen to belong to St. Agnes Episcopal Church, where my wife and I celebrate our own individual and personal religious beliefs and traditions, devoutly, respectfully, regularly and always together.  It would seem to most readers of that post, that a debate about pro-life and pro-choice should rely upon trust and faith in God to settle.  I believe I did, but I didn't say so.  It is precisely because of my moral framework that is my awareness of God, that I believe what I believe, but I don't explain it as "because God said so."  My God is not a parent, and I'm no longer a child.  Allow me to illustrate.

Recently, I received a political survey in the mail.  Normally, I just throw these away.  I threw this one away, but not until after I had scanned it and noticed one of the questions:  "How many times a day do you pray?  One? Two? Three? Four? Other?" and then there was a blank where you could write an answer or a comment.  I didn't.  As I said, I threw it away.  I did think about that question and how I might answer it.  I would have had to use the blank space because choosing a number would have been impossible.  I don't believe the author of that survey and I have the same definition(s) for "pray."  I don't believe I could explain in the alloted and very limited space in that box on that page what I believe adequately enough for the unknown person who reads the comment to understand my position.  It would have been a waste of my time, and his or hers as well, and used for purposes I would not support.

What does this have to do with the debate between those who say they are pro-choice and those who say they are pro-life?  Perhaps very little, but it has a lot to do with my relationship with God which affected how I wrote about that debate and about how I would answer a very simplistic and silly question about prayer.  

I believe that God is always "listening" to me, and to you, and to everyone who is alive in this universe.  I think praying is for us, not for God.  It allows us a chance to "listen" to God.  I pray once a day, it is a long prayer which lasts from the moment I awake in the morning until the moment I go to sleep at night--with a possible interruption during an afternoon nap.  Even when sleeping, we can "listen," or sense God.  If we choose to do that by pondering such things when we return to awakeness.  So life is a long prayer, a communication with God.  Some of us "listen" to God actively, others might pay no conscious attention, but I believe God is always aware of us, and the word "listen" doesn't explain it.  It may be an extrasensory experience--something we call a spiritual awareness.

I believe God is always aware of all of us.  I believe we are endowed by our creator with the equal potential to be aware of God, but life and its experiences complicate that awareness.  I believe God gave us the potential to experience life, freely.  I believe God gives us free-will to think, act, explore, discover, and all of the other human behaviors and attitudes that fill our lives.  My God is not a puppet-master and I'm not a puppet.  I'm not living God's plan, God and I are on a journey together, a journey that no one has ever taken before.  We are discovering my life together.  God is discovering and experiencing every life--I might argue that God is Life!

God, and Life, goes on in this universe and on this planet and in this country, state, community, and home whether I'm alive or not.  I believe that God experiences God's universe through life and all living entities.  When my lifetime ends, then God will cease to experience my life at least in the sense that my journey through life is over.  It is difficult for me to imagine before or after my life, except through what I've been taught by the traditions of my Christian belief system.  I used to think that death might be like before birth--absolute nothingness.  As I grew older, and ever closer to the promised land, I've wondered if life after death might be an awareness of a life or of lives with God, which could not exist until life was or is lived.  I have the advantage of never having studied theology, so I am free of the boundaries of thinking of many wise thinkers of the past and present.  I'm unencumbered by any knowledge of what I'm discussing.  I'm ignorant of these ideas, but, therefore, quite free to ponder.

I don't believe that science or humans will ever discover God or explain God.  Science and the pursuits of scientists may help us to understand this natural and physical universe that we inhabit, but I don't believe science should or could dwell in the realm of God.  Pursuing a greater understanding of our universe, natural and physical, is something God gave us the inclination and the ability to do.  It is one way that we might show our love for God. 

For those of you looking for answers to life's mysteries in the Bible, as we find in the Gospel of Mark, Chapter 2, verses 29 and 30:  "The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength:"  and of course, in the next verse, Jesus tells us to love our neighbor as ourselves.  And then he teaches us that no other commandment is greater than these.  Loving God with "all thy mind" is pertinent.  Seeking to understand is a power of the mind, which we should use to the fullest.  Science is an organized approach to understanding, to using our mind, and to loving our God. 

In Matthew, Chapter 5, verses 14 to 16, Jesus tells us: "Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.  Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.  Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."  The "good works" of science should be seen by all, and such works bring glory to God.

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Pro-Life? or Pro-Choice?

Posted by Doc Stephens on Saturday, February 09, 2008 11:03:20 AM
Pro-life or pro-choice?  For years, I was somewhat baffled by this question.  this is an example of an artificial dichotomy.  It is as if we must somehow fit into one or the other of these two undefined categories of opinions and the word will sum up everything you need to know about us based upon our stance on this subject.  Actually, there are many subtle differences of opinion and shadings of meaning that drive us into one or the other of these categories, and 99 percent of us never have to think about or declare which group we choose to join.  Some declarations are based upon which group we wish to have accept us with open arms.   If you want to be a card-carrying conservative, you had better delcare that you are pro-life, or they'll never let you join the club--and vice versa for a liberal.  Well don't ever run for public office without making a carefully crafted declaration for all to read, and then be prepared to suffer the consequences of extreme stereotyping.

Here is where I stand.  I don't believe a woman or her physician, or anyone else, should ever take the life of an unborn person, solely for the purpose of taking that life.  The taking of a life should never be arbitrary or for the convenience of another life or lives.  In my view, such an action would fit rather nicely in the category of actions we call murder and it should not be allowed in a civilized society.  If a pregnant woman has a medical circumstance that she and her physician believe threatens the life of either the woman or the child, then everything possible should be done to try to save both lives.  I believe it is the right of the woman to choose a course of action in this case, as long as the chosen action is not murder.  So I'm both pro-life and pro-choice.

Now comes the subtleties.  When is a living entity a person?  When does life begin?  How can we know the intent of a physician who takes an unborn person from a mother?  Did the physician try to save the unborn, or just discard it?  Medical science understands the difficulties and very low probabilities of survival of a fetus that is in the first or even second tri-mester, yet there are situations where a medical procedure is deemed necessary to protect the life of the mother.  Every day, physicians struggle with incredibly complicated and extremely emotional cases where they must decide if and which heroic efforts are appropriate.  Such an effort to save one life, might actually result in the sacrifice of another or others in the case of multiple embryos or fetuses.  Until we've faced such a dilemma, we can't possibly empathize with those who must make such a life or death choice.  The government, local, state, and federal, should stay out of those cases.

Life doesn't begin, it continues, but it changes.  Sperms and eggs are alive as are embryos, fetuses, and obviously infants.  You can never win an argument about when life begins.  You can argue successfullly, though, about when "a" life begins.  It is at the moment when a sperm fertilizes an egg to become a zygote.  At some point in time, you have a zygote (a single cell that has the genetic potential to live a life) and that is a new living entity that didn't exist before.  From that point on, what was that single-celled zygote changes and develops and eventually becomes conscious of itself and recognized by others as a person.  I would argue, the single fertilized cell we call a zygote, is a person with some potential to be born and live a life.  As a civilized society, we should do what we can to protect that individual and support it on its journey through life.  I believe we should allow the mother, the physician, and the father to choose what to do to save, protect, and support that person.  As long as that is their intent, they should be allowed to choose.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Faith, Belief, and Scientific Theories

Posted by Doc Stephens on Sunday, February 03, 2008 3:10:30 PM
The front page of the Sunday February 3, 2008 edition of the local newspaper had an article entitled "School Board to Consider Evolution Resolution."  The article begins by stating  "With all five school board members believing evolution should not be taught as fact, . . . on Tuesday will consider a resolution opposing the state's proposed new science standards stance on evolution." 

According to the paper, Highlands Today, The proposed resolution states, "The board recognizes the importance of providing a thorough and comprehensive science education to all students in Highlands County, which the board believes should include the multiple theories of the origins of the universe and life on Earth."  And then, according to the paper, the resolution concludes, "The State Board of Education is urged strongly to direct the Florida Department of Education to revise the new Sunshine State Standards for Science such that the big-bang theory and evolution shall be presented only as two of several theories in the study of science."  

The school board members obviously do not have any significant background in science.  They are interpreting the language used in the standards as laypersons would interpret those words and drawing conclusions that are unintended by the authors of the standards.  Ironically, a science educator reading this resolution would say "fine" and then go on teaching to the standards without any concern because the science educator does not understand what the lay board members intend by their resolution.  They speak different languages and don't understand each other.

Here are a couple of key words that have different meaning for scientists and laypersons that are used in the state science standards and by the members of the school board to mean different things.

Theory - To the layperson, a theory is a guess that might be arrived at through some logical reasoning.  To a scientist, a theory is a well accepted body of knowledge to explain something.  Scientists pursue truth, but can never know if they have reached it.  Scientific theories are always developing as new evidence is considered and new observations are made.  Throughout history there have been many examples of scientific theories that were once accepted by most or all scientists in the field or discipline, but later discarded or changed significantly as more study, research, thinking, and debate uncovered new and sometimes contradictory evidence that ultimately led to a more plausible explanation or theory.  The scientific method is a rational process for developing and improving scientific theories. 

Fact - To the layperson, a fact is the honest truth.  Most scientists do not use this word very often in this context, but never in scientific discourse as a synonym of "truth."  No science educator should ever say that a theory is a "fact."  That might be an emotional response to someone questioning a well accepted scientific theory, but theories, no matter how well accepted, are not "facts."  In fact, to a scientist who is careful with language, facts are just pieces of information which may or may not be accurate depending upon how that information was collected and how it was interpreted.  It would be a "fact" that Louis Leakey discovered a bone fragment that had characteristics in common with modern man, but other characteristics in common with great apes or other primates.  Dr. Leakey might hypothesize about what might have led to his observation, but his observations and his hypotheses are not truths nor are they scientific theories.  He is using his powers of observation, after observing countless bone fragments from modern and archaic creatures, and comparing and forming judgments about what he sees.  Dr. Leakey and many other scientists over a period of time, perhaps hundreds of years, may formulate a theory to explain what they observe and as a result of testing various hypotheses, but the best they can do as scientists is offer a scientific theory--in this example, a theory of evolution.  The theory of evolution is constantly being questioned and improved by scientists.  The early observations, hypotheses, and theories offered by Charles Darwin created a framework, but compared to modern evolutionary theory, his ideas were simplistic and in many cases not consistent with the current science in the field--such is the nature of scientific inquiry.   

To further confuse the layperson, the word "evolution" also is used as a shorthand for the process of natural selection which is observable.  Yes, it is easy to observe natural selection and "evolution" in a laboratory and in the real world.  It is all around us and all you have to do to see it is know what to look for.  Our current concern about Bird Flu is related to the potential mutation of the virus to a form that can more easily be transmitted from human to human.  Scientists even understand what mutation would have to occur, and if it did, the virus would have "evolved" to a new more successfully transmitted strain through natural selection.  Microbiologists observe this process of "evolution" all the time in their laboratories.  In this context, it is a "fact" that "evolution" or more correctly that natural selection is observed.  

So, the proposed school board resolution changes nothing.  A well trained science educator would not say that the theory of evolution or the big-bang theory is a "fact" or the "truth."  Frankly, theory is the best that science can do.  And science Educators should always describe competing scientific theories when they are relevant.  It would be wrong for our science teachers to omit such theories.  The history of science is full of heated dialogue and competing explanations.  Great thinkers of the past built complex theories to explain what they observed based upon a flat-earth theory.  They created models to explain how the sun and the planets moved around the earh.  We laugh at these notions today, but not because these early philosphers were not intelligent, because they were, but because we have much more information availble to us today.  We've sent great machines and men and women into space who have observed the earth and moon traveling around the sun and the sun around the center of mass of our galaxy and the galaxy around the center of mass of our local group of galaxies.   We know what our ancestors could not have known.  Such is the nature of scientific inquiry. 

Here is the punch line.  The members of the school board, and many in the public, apparently believe that religious traditions and their related origin stories should also be taught in science classes as if they were "other theories."  There are several problems with this argument.  First of all, science teachers are not necessarily qualified to teach comparative religion.  The study of such traditions more appropriately belongs in classes about the humanities, history, religion, literature, or in our churches, temples, mosques, and homes.  These traditions have nothing to do with science--they are not scientific theories.  they are faith based-belief systems which hold a vitally important and most interesting place in a culture.  There are different tradtions in just about every culture on earth.  Do we teach the Judeo-Christian version including Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden?  How about some of the eastern religions, or the beliefs and traditions of African tribes or indigenous people of this continent.  Let the humanities and comparative religion professors explore these wonderful and inspirational ideas.  Allow the science teachers to teach science--a very human enterprise, well dimished in comparison to the realm of God.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Artificial Dichotomies

Posted by Doc Stephens on Saturday, February 02, 2008 9:47:43 PM
Many years ago, actually more than three decades ago, I read an article about "artificial dichotomies" by an author who's name long ago escaped my certain memory.  My uncertain memory recalls that the author was Stafford Beer, but a search of his bibliography online does not verify this hunch.  Nevertheless, artificial dichotomies are alive and well.

When we attempt to identify plants and animals we often use a dichotomous key which allows us to classify by making a choice between two alternatives.  For example, we might be able to decide if a large white wading bird is a white morph of the Great Blue Heron or a Snowy Egret by noting whether the legs are yellow or black.  Similarly, we can distinguish between a Banded Water Snake and a Water Mocassin by the shape of the pupil of the eye, round or vertical. 

More commonly, we decide between two alternatives as if they were the only possibilities, or as if the two choices actually had a well defined difference.  When they don't, it is an "artificial dichotomy."  Most of the time, this is the case.

Have you stopped to consider the difference between a liberal and a conservative?  Could you walk into a room full of people and classify them as tall or short?  How about black or white?  How about pro-choice or pro-life?  How about rich or poor?  Even such apparently obvious choices as Christian or non-Christian defy agreement, or even consensus.  Of course one of the most famous artificial dichotomies is "black" or "white."  Most decisions are nowhere even close to "black" or "white" and skin color is never "black" or "white." 

We argue interminably about such things.  At a recent political debate, the participants were quite agitated about who was a conservative and who was not.  It is an artificial dichotomy.  The differences are usually continuous rather than dichotomous.  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Names and Labels

Posted by Doc Stephens on Sunday, January 27, 2008 11:45:30 AM
A few random thoughts about names and labels.

The planet we live on and call "Earth" should be called "Planet Ocean."

The state of Indiana is named out of respect for an indigenous people who were called Indians because Columbus mistakenly thought he was in India when he visited our hemisphere and found humans who looked different them him.

If anthropologists are right about the migrations of modern humans over the past 35,000 years, we are all "African Americans" although some of our ancestors left Africa much earlier than others, and for very different reasons.  

All humans have the same skin pigment (except albino's who have no skin pigment).  The differences between our skin color has to do with the amount of the pigment.  Darker skinned people have more of the pigment than the lighter skinned people.  The same thing is true about eye color and hair color.

The differences in skin color within the "races" is greater than the differences between the averages of the "races."

There is no such thing as a "race of people."  All known living humans are the same species, and the goofy idea of "race" was invented to classify people who appear to be different based upon some visible characteristics, but not other visible characteristics.  Defining a person as belonging to the "white" group is no different than saying a person belongs to the "tall" group of humans, or the "skinny" group of humans, or the "blue-eyed" group of humans, or the frekled group, the curly haired group, the bald group, or any other way of categorizing us humans.  The classification based upon "race" took on political and emotional meaning and became part of our language. 

Not all Christians agree on what is a Christian.

Not all Conservatives agree on what is a Conservative.

We can more easily agree on what is a Democrat or a Republican--in some states.

There is no such thing as "global climate" but we can certainly argue about how it has changed, and is changing, and might change in the future--it is a concept with many different descriptors and definitions.

Enough of this.

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Global Warming and Climate Change

Posted by Doc Stephens on Sunday, January 27, 2008 1:40:19 AM
What do these two words mean?  For some, "global warming" shouts "our planet is heating and it's all our fault."  For many of the same people, "climate change" is just a slick euphemism invented to convey the same notion, but without the emotional or political baggage associated with "global warming."  Soon, someone will invent another way of saying the same thing, and that will become the code that separates us--liberal versus conservative, knowing versus unknowing, climate scientist versus layman. 

It is actually quite complicated.  The planet's climate is always changing, always has, always will.  It's been warmer and it's been colder, it's been wetter, and it's been drier.  There is lots of evidence for this, and anyone who has looked at this evidence will agree. 

Unfortunately,  there are those who think that the Earth's climate was stable, until we came along and messed it up with our burning of fossil fuels.  We may be messing it up to some extent, but the global climate was never some constant state.  There never was a perfect climate that we need to protect and maintain. 

There are many reasons why the Earth's climate is always changing. 

1.  The Earth is not always the same distance from our primary source of heat, the sun, and its orbit is eliptical.  Because of this, the Earth is closer to the sun at some times of the year and farther away at other times.  To complicate this picture, the Earth's orbit is constantly changing.  Furthermore, the entire solar system orbits around the gravitational center of the galaxy.  This motion carries us through regions of space with different quantities of interstellar gases and particulates which also affects how much and what kind of solar radiation reaches the Earth.

2.  The tilt of the Earth's axis is not always the same and therefore, seasonal variations differ as this tilt changes.

3.  The Earth wobbles as it spins, once every 26,000 years, and this causes the northern and southern hemispheres to be more directly facing the sun at different times in it's orbit around the sun.  At the present, it is winter in the northern hemisphere when we are closest to the sun and farthest from the sun in the northern hemisphere summer.

4.  The sun is a variable star.  It's output of solar energy varies over time and in cycles that are fairly well understood.

5.  The Earth itself is a source of heat that enters the oceans and the atmosphere.  This heat is from nuclear fission reactions that occur within the planet where radioactive substances undergo their predictable decay.  The heat released is significant enough to melt rock.  Over time, this heat is released through fissures, volcanos, and through the Earth's crust in general.

6.  The atmosphere is constantly changing in composition.  Some components of the atmosphere absorb heat that is radiated from the surface.  Other components of the atmosphere block heat from reaching the surface.  There is circulation in the atmosphere which is influenced by oceans and landforms as well as by the sun and seasons.

7.  More than three-fourth's of the Earth's surface is water.  As water heats, it releases dissolved gasses into the atmosphere, as it cools, it absorbs gases.  Most of the dissoved gasses in the oceans originate from within the Earth's crust under the oceans.  The oceans also absorb gases from the atmosphere.  Precipitation systems have a significant influence on the transport of gases and heat energy between the oceans and the atmosphere.

8.  The oceans' currents are constantly flowing and changing.  There are well understood annual, multidecadal, and other long-term cycles of ocean current variations.  There are cold and warm currents.  Ocean currents have a profound influence on local climates over all of the land masses of the Earth.

9.  The continents and the Earth's crust are constantly moving, up and down, back and forth.  The crust exists in sections called plates which slide past each other, collide, move apart.  The crust generally rises after glaciers melt and pushes down into the mantle when they accumulate.  Both land elevations, the distance from the center of the Earth, and sea levels are constantly changing all over the Earth.  Changes in sea level should be described relative to some frame of reference.  Not all oceans are at the same level or changing in the same direction.  The Atlantic Ocean is enlarging, the Pacific is getting smaller.

10.  Human activity changes the surface of the Earth and also the composition of the atmosphere.  Other living creatures of all kinds do this as well.  Virtually all of the oxygen in our atmosphere came from green plants through photosynthesis.  Until there were green plants, there was no significant amount of oxygen and there were no air-breathing animals either. 

The Earth is currently in an interglacial within an ice age.  Yes, we are in an ice age, perhaps the fourth such age since the Earth was formed.  The planet has been generally warming for about 18,000 years.  The last glacial period ended about 12,000 years ago and sea level has been rising ever since.  When Columbus discovered the indigenous peoples of the Carribean in 1492, sea level was several feet lower than today.  The first human activity that had a measurable influence on climate was agriculture which began to affect local climate about 8,000 years ago. 

Now, the question remains, how much influence does human activity have on our climate?  That is the great debate.  Some anthropogentic influences cause the atmosphere to warm while others cause it to cool.  Unfortunately, our climate models are not sufficiently sophisiticated to answer this question, yet.  It is even possible that human activity causing warming might delay our next global cooling period.  Wouldn't that be ironic?  If you get to choose whether you want to get warmer or cooler, pick warmer!  Cooler is a real killer!

The climate is going to continue to change, no matter what we humans do, and it would be changing, even if we did not inhabit this planet.  We need to focus our attention on adapting as well as protecting.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Communicating

Posted by Doc Stephens on Saturday, January 26, 2008 10:04:01 PM
Dear Fellow Travelers,

If we're going on this journey together, I imagine we're going to want to have a conversation.  It might be a good idea to establish some mutual understandings so that our journey and our conversation will be more interesting, civil, and enlightening, and much less confusing, contradictory, or argumentative.  

When we communicate, we usually use words and phrases.  When I use a word or phrase, I have a certain intended meaning.  When you hear me speak or read what I write, you might not assign the same meanings to the words I use as the ones that I intended.  We could, therefore, have a misunderstanding.   This is human nature and it goes on all of the time-sometimes with very funny consequences, sometimes someone gets hurt or even killed.  To further complicate matters, the meanings of words, depend very much upon the context in which they are expressed or perceived-the sentence, the paragraph, the environment, and even the audience.   And of course, we must also consider all of the nonverbal aspects of the communication that you might be observing, or reading between the lines, that I may not realize you are perceiving and interpreting wrongly or rightly.  Experts tell us that most of what we communicate is, in fact, nonverbal. 

When we write, I believe there is still a nonverbal component to that communication.  Now, I've already introduced some confusion.  The word "nonverbal" means communication without language.   How can written language occur without language.  We may need a linguist to help us here, and, to paraphrase the immortal words of Lloyd Benson, yours truly, is no linguist.   Anyway, we all read between the lines.  And it is that perception of what is "between the lines" that I consider as the nonverbal communication received, but not necessarily sent or intended. 

As we travel along this journey together, let's agree to the following. I'll do my best to write clearly and succinctly. You do your best to give me the benefit of the doubt as you draw conclusions about what I've said or meant.  I'll pay attention to your comments, to the extent I have time, and clarify when it is obvious that I've failed to comply with my first rule.  You will always obey my second rule, but will take the time to ask for clarification when you are not sure what I've meant.

I'm a life-long educator.  One of the greatest and most important challenges we face as we develop as a society, is ignorance.  I'm passionate about learning, formal and informal, intended and unintended.  That is why I'm writing this.  Through this effort, perhaps I might develop a little more wisdom, and at the same time, give my readers an equal opportunity to gain as much, or more. 

Thanks for your consideration.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »