As I mentioned last week the new TV show “Cosmos,” hosted by astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson, recently brought up contention between the philosophical concerns that “Cosmos” advocates and the indignant repudiations of these kinds of attempts by people with opposing worldviews. Already the TV show has garnered complaints from the Answers in Genesis (AiG) creation science and Christian apologetics group. The argument going on is more a matter of details and should not be used to eclipse the overall message put forth in “Cosmos.”
The problem originates because empirical scientists often take themselves too seriously, forgetting their scientific theories have nothing to tell us about metaphysics or religion. Often theories and data-interpretations rely on assumptions taken on faith, leaving the important philosophical questions open to criticism that general science simply cannot answer.
Creationists are too ready to jump on some scientists because they sometimes feel backed into a corner by their less evidence-oriented approach to science. This debate continues only because of the repetitive cycle of theologians defending themselves with their own take on science from scientists that are making philosophical arguments that science cannot back up and vice versa.
AiG complained in its blog of circular and inconsistent reasoning in some of Tyson’s message in “Cosmos.”
“Despite the admonition to ‘question everything’ and to ‘reject’ ideas that ‘don’t pass the test,’ the fact that abiogenesis (life forming from inanimate matter) violates the fundamental laws of biology is ignored. Evolutionary blind faith in a ‘great mystery’ … trumps the scientific method,” AiG’s blog said about Tyson’s take on evolution.
And so we see that science is outside of its realm of expertise and so is religion once it refutes entire scientific theories because of incompatibilities that can be easily resolved once literal interpretations of scripture are relaxed.
One possible solution to this conundrum is to ask creationists some questions: Could God not have ordained abiogenesis to happen if he is omnipotent? Why must we attack the results of scientific inquiry when the results themselves may hold true and it is only the occasional philosophical outcropping that we should call into question?
The goal of “Cosmos” is not to attack religion. Tyson’s attempt to reason from evidence and accepted scientific theory pushes Americans into the mindset he and Carl Sagan call the “cosmic perspective.” This cosmic perspective tries to bring us out of an Earth-centric worldview, which is easy to fall into as long as all we ever look at is the Earth. Thus, by looking at the universe in general and bringing up issues relevant to continued human survival under conditions of continual warfare and lackadaisical environmental stewardship, Tyson may end up challenging many Christians, though not on the end goal of happiness and peace, but merely on the premises for wanting such things.
As long as groups like AiG feel its religion is attacked by the mention of origins of life that do not explicitly credit God’s miraculous intervention, we will be stuck just fighting over the premises of our arguments and miss the conclusion that we should all share that “Cosmos” advocates: We are fragile here on our rock, and just because God may have created us does not mean we cannot accidentally kill ourselves and destroy much of the nice creation he has provided us.
We must stop arguing over how the cosmos was created and realize it exists for us to take care of before it is too late. Philosopher Wendell Berry admonishes us in his essay “God and Country” by saying, “If God loves the world, then how might any person of faith be excused for not loving it or justified in destroying it.” This is what “Cosmos” drives at by advocating Sagan’s cosmic perspective, just from a possibly different set of premises than Christianity.
