We Moved! You will automatically be redirected to the new site in 3 seconds. If your browser doesn't automatically load, click HERE. Cosmos~ Liturgy~ Sex: The Ties that Blind

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

The Ties that Blind

As much as scientists (doctors generally consider themselves part of this community) like to espouse their objectivity in looking at the scientific data and their skepticism with respect to any and all "ideologies," the truth is that they are every much as subject to “groupthink” as anyone else. The biological evolution debate comes to mind here, where such ideologues as Richard Dawkins and the late Stephen Jay Gould refuse to admit the shortcomings of the current evolutionary theories because they are frightened that the only alternative explanation seems to them to be some sort of theism. Well, move over Richard, Stephen, you have company coming to join you. Zenit ran an interview in today’s edition with Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons of the Catholic Medical Association. In previous posts, I have referred to a white paper, to which he was a major contributor, "Homosexuality and Hope.” In the interview, Fitzgibbons, a psychiatrist, details how the American Psychiatric Association has wedded itself to anti-Christian, and especially anti-Catholic ideologies. Fitzgibbons says that these ties blind it to the medical evidence that homosexual attraction and behavior bring with it serious psychiatric and medical illnesses. The best part of this interview is the links to summaries of studies which detail these findings. In a culture where the gods are scientific knowledge and technology, and the high priests are the scientists and engineers (I had to throw engineers in . . .) the lay faithful are apt to bow down to whatever the high priests tell us. Hopefully we will mature in time to keep from following these “scientists,” like lemmings, over a sociological cliff.

9 Comments:

Blogger Todd said...

Scientists are certainly victims of human failings, conservativism in time when openness to new ideas seems (in hindsight) indicated.

But the truth of it is that intelligent design and creationism are not science; they are engineering on a theological level. Biological science cannot explain the tweaks that might have occurred to bring about human beings any more than it can explain the European settlement of the Western Hemisphere.

On the topic of homosexuality, both ideological sides have a lot at stake in the debate of gay: nurture or nature. My sense is that neither side can responsibly set aside its hopes to enter into a passionless study of the matter.

7/20/2005 11:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent comment Todd.

7/21/2005 07:35:00 AM  
Blogger shelray said...

think a common misconception by some is that if one is not born with a same sex attraction, than the only other possibility must be that one must make a conscious choice to be "gay".
How do we explain any of our attractions? Our favorite color, foods, music, etc...
Are all of our "attractions" predetermined in our genes, or by experiences in our life?
Since we do not know exactly why we are attracted to certain people, personalities, or foods, can we conclude we were born that way?

7/21/2005 08:31:00 AM  
Blogger David said...

Todd - I am not sure if your intelligent design/creationism comments were based upon an assumption about where I was coming from with my aside; however, in either case thanks for the opportunity to clarify my view.

We certainly will not settle the definition of science here. For Aristotle up to St. Thomas, metaphysics and theology were sciences. Not until Descartes and Bacon were formal and final causality removed from the field of science. Since then, the ability to define what science is has been an ongoing debate. The attempts of those such as Karl Popper et. al., with their failed efforts at developing principles such as those of verifiability and falsifiability (both with strong and weak versions) to exclude metaphysics and theology while maintaining as science such disciplines as cosmology, theoretical physics and yes, even biological evolution, demonstrate the difficulty. However, being a Thomist I can agree with what I assume is your intention that it is helpful to distinguish among metaphysics, theology and the study of the natural world (material and efficient causes). However, I am not sure that I understand your point about intelligent design (ID) and creationism being engineering. Reverse engineering perhaps, which is basically what scientists do I would suggest, but not what is generally understood to be engineering (i.e. design).

I agree that it is important to make the distinction between the study and explanation of the natural world on the one hand, and doing metaphysics on the other. That is exactly the problem with evolutionists (as opposed to scientists who do evolution), creationists, and ID folks. I submit that they all do science (in what I think is your sense) but then use their results to make metaphysical (and in the case of creationists, often theological) extrapolations. In the case of evolutionists, they think being able to understand how the natural world works means that God does not exist. ID folks sometimes come close to making the same mistake as Newton when he led the way to the God of the gap theory. When Laplace found how to take God out of Newton’s orbital mechanics theory he thought he had done away with the need for God. Never before did anyone think that finding a natural explanation for something previously attributed to God, think that the finding obviated the need for God. Since then, evolutionists and others have used this infamous God of the gaps argument against theism. Creationists definitely continue perpetuating this problem.

Nevertheless, I have to admit that I have a fondness for the intelligent design movement. First and foremost, because they have done science a great service by helping to uncover shortcomings in current biological evolutionary theories hidden by evolutionists’ ideological blind spots. Irreducible complexity comes to mind here. Even so, I agree that they do present a problem (beyond the possibility of providing future fodder for those using the “God of the gaps” argument against theism) and that is that they may imply that there is no natural explanation for something and therefore science should stop studying the problem. The Thomist in me recognizes that while God is the First Cause of all things, he has given nature a certain autonomy with secondary causality. In other words, those studying nature should in principle never give up looking for natural causes for natural phenomena.

Finally, I would like to make a distinction in terminology. “Gay” is a term that was coined a generation ago to advocate a certain lifestyle. The debate of nurture v. nature is about homosexual / same sex attractions. Thus, the debate would be better termed the latter because using the former term is in a sense begging the question and assuming the answer. In addition, I would suggest that you may be oversimplifying the issue by presenting it simply as two ideologies at loggerheads with one another. While there are certainly ideologues who are both for and against the homosexual agenda, those sincere Christians motivated by Christ’s love to spread the gospel and share the truth of the damage that those who engage in homosexual behavior do to themselves, others, and society are not motivated by mere human ideology. However, neither can they be dispassionate. They must be passionate about their love for Christ and therefore, for those who suffer from same sex attractions. If we do so then prayer, understanding and concern with precede and always accompany our witness to the truth.

7/21/2005 10:59:00 AM  
Blogger R2K said...

"any more than it can explain the European settlement of the Western Hemisphere."

It can, that's called the science of history.

Sorry, I dont want to ruin what you guys have going here. But you have a very poor understanding of what science is, how it works, and what it can do.

This isnt your fault, science education is pathetic for those not passing above the highschool level. But it is your fault when you start to speak about things you dont fully understand.

I wont pretend to know the bible, why dont you hold off on suggesting what science cant do?

Science can, with ease, explain any topic here. Including homosexuality, the history of human migration, and the evolution of species.

At least you guys seem to admit that creationism isnt a science.

And if I could add, on a lighter note, I am a bit annoyed that the word Gay has been changed to mean homosexual. It was once a good word to use in every day life, in its first meaning ("the gay 90s" for example).

I would like to still be able to say it this way, but I cant! :)

Nice blog, I wont bother you guys ever again!

7/21/2005 12:02:00 PM  
Blogger R2K said...

What is crazy to me is this:

What are the odds that you would only not like the science that goes against your religion?

All the rest is ok, but the few areas that are in conflict? That just seems so childish, and so transparent.

What is wrong with evolution? It has some of the most extensive backing in all of biology. If you dont accept evoultion as an accurate model, how can you accept anything else in biology?

Ahh but most of the other areas are not in conflict with your faith.

7/21/2005 12:04:00 PM  
Blogger David said...

Alex -

You obviously have assumed a lot more than has been said. There is nothing about the "scientific" theory of evolution which conflicts with Christianity, nor could it. Catholics have no fear of science (indeed no Christian should) and indeed it was from Catholicism that the university system arose and much of science with it (in fact the big bang theory was developed by a Catholic priest). What I have criticized is the mistaken use of science to try to make metaphysical assertions. Science (what I assume to be your understanding) limits itself to observations of the material world. Thus, it can only make assertions about the material world and has no competence to make claims about that which it does not study. Many scientists recognize this, some do not (i.e. the evolutionists which I have distinguished from scientists who do evolution). Neither have I completely condemned biological evolutionary theory. It is wanting but I suspect there is something to it; nevertheless, if it is to survive, it requires major modifications beyond random mutation and natural selection.

You really also should read more about the current state of thought in biological evolution (as opposed to cosmological, social, etc.) Darwinian evolution (i.e. incremental, continuous evolution) came on hard times because it could not explain the fossil record and so the response was the “synthetic theory” in the 1930s, also called neo-Darwinsim. This added mathematical models to the theory but still could not explain the fossil record. In the 1970s, Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge recognized that the emperor still had no clothes (they called this the dirty little secret of paleontology) and proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. The French biology academy has never accepted any form of Darwinian evolution (the French academy can in no sense be said to be driven by religious motives) and they are starting to make inroads in the Western English speaking academy (really the only ones who really have ever embraced Darwin). Even the great atheist apologist, Anthony Flew, has come to recognize that the current biological evolutionary theory is wanting. In fact, in part because of this he has made a metaphysical extrapolation (which he recognizes and so this is valid) and become a theist based upon this insight.

I do not know your background but from your comments, I assume that you have very little background in philosophy or theology. That is not surprising given that high schools do not teach these subjects, but it is your fault when you start to speak about things you do not understand(sorry, I sometimes have difficulty controlling myself in returning comments to their rightful owners). I would recommend that you be careful to make distinctions between what is valid study of the material world and what this data can say about metaphysics or religion/theology.

By the way, as way of truth in advertising, I have my M.S. in Electrical Engineering and have been an avid student and practitioner of science and engineering for over 25 years. I have only recently completed a PhD in systematic theology and consider the interplay of science and religion an area of special interest and some competence.

7/21/2005 01:19:00 PM  
Blogger Todd said...

David, I appreciate your additional thoughts. I have the sense (like many ID proponents) that life in the universe is exceedingly rare, if not unique. But I think evolution is still the best model we have to explain the emergence of life and its development. That model is constantly being refined, as the scientific process readily allows. Ther's simply nothing else on the table.

The meaning of my comment about engineering, is simply this: if God has a direct hand in developing one, some, or all life on Earth, it disqualifies as natural science. That's not to say that hard sciences and philosophy can't and shouldn't intermingle, or even intermarry and create new scholarly disciplines. On another blog, I mentioned an example of a musician learning to make musical instruments. It happens often, and it indeed involves a degree of artistry. But carpentry, plant science, wood finishing, studying physics, and all, are not quite the same as making music per se.

If evolutionists abandon God for their science, that is bad, but it is a condemnation of their spiritual lives, not the science they present. A person can be an excellent auto mechanic and not believe in God. I might still choose her or him instead of a faith-filled parishioner who can't get my exhaust system spot right.

And on the homosexual/gay issue, I'm not sure my terminology is entirely conservative pc. Homosexuals may have a point about the pathologies associated with their orientation of lifestyle being partly imposed from society at large. I think that's another instance in which the passions of the debate have clouded any reasonable attempt to discern the truth.

Your academic background is of great interest. My undergraduate studies were in paleontology and mathematics and later I finished a degree in systematic theology. If I had an opportunity to add something new, I'd probably study architecture for something completely different.

Good blog, btw.

7/21/2005 04:25:00 PM  
Blogger David said...

Todd -

Thanks for the comments and the positive review; I very much appreciate it!

A couple further clarifications if I may. I do not subscribe to the classifications such as liberal, moderate, or conservative for Catholics because I think that it is misleading (in both directions) and people tend to dismiss an idea or person without considering its/his merits simply due to a classification. Thus, the distinction between "gay" and "homosexual/ same sex attractions" is not an agenda but just that, a distinction. The former advocates a life style and the latter defines a pathology.

The second: I continue to resist the classification of Catholic evangelization of the truth about the human person as only male and female, as one pole in a debate. It is not ideological passion but the passion of love for the Truth (i.e. Christ) which must guide Catholics. We know by faith, with much more certainty than science can provide, the truth that homosexual attractions damage people and societies. However, it is also very helpful to have the sociological data at hand to support this. If you saw the article interviewing Dr. Fitzgibbons (http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=74506), he affirms that much of the data showing the psychological pathologies come from studies conducted in cultures where homosexuality is widely accepted. This is not to even consider the medical evidence and common sense really. In other words, the data supports the Catholic model. It appears very unlikely to me, given the sources, that the studies cited are the result to bias arising out of passion.

7/21/2005 08:19:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home