aMap is the Best! No, aMap is the worst!

A truckload of thanks to my friend Thom (who is now 10 Bonus Points richer!) for turning me on to aMap. This is an intriguing widget that provides mind-mapping structure to arguments.  For kicks and giggles, I made an aMap of the recent post and comment thread of "Science can enrich faith, but not visa versa?"  which was my response to a statement by Dr. Lawrence Krauss. With wild swings of a very blunt axe, I chopped down the very rich discussion into some basic arguments and supporting statements.  In the first aMap I've mapped the position that "Faith can Enrich Science", supported largely in the comments by myself and The Deeps of Time, (Michael). 

In the second aMap, I tried (crudely) to present the contrary position made mostly by Rocket Scientist (Stephanie) and Letters from Lausanne (Boris).  

Apologies to all for hacking off some delicious fruit while doing this pruning.  The purpose of this post is two-fold: 1) Introduce a widget that could be a constructive forum for arguments; 2) Use you as lab rats to assess the potential of this tool. Please build on either argument and help me put this tool to the test.  If this is as snappy as it seems, I'll be happier than a pig in poop.

Do you like aMap, love it, hate it?  Please put this through the paces and let me know.  Let the kicking and giggling begin.

Update 1/26/09:  One drawback to aMap I just noticed is that the title can't be edited once the widget code is created.  My apologies for mispelling "enrich" as "engich".    Although, that might also make an interesting argument.

"Science may enrich faith, but not visa versa"?

Recently Science and Religion News posted  a video link of a lecture by Dr. Lawrence Krauss entitled Science and Religion: Two Ships in the Night. This is the money line from an abstract that sent the hamster on my mental wheel running like a banshee: 

At best , science and religion have very little to do with one another. At worst, they are completely incompatible. And what little connection between the two even in the best of cases involves a one-way street. Science may enrich faith, but not vice versa. [emphasis mine].

Being both a Christian and a scientist, this quote not only gave me pause, it wrapped up "pause"  in a nice gift bag with a pretty bow and a little note that said, "To: Brian, Love: Quote".

Let me leave aside the extensive contributions of people of faith to science because I don't believe that is the speaker's intention (though it does play a role in the issue).   To me,  faith makes this chief contribution to science: from faith springs freedom.  And from freedom springs freedom of thought.  And from freedom of thought springs the riches of science.

To bolster my claim I offer these words from the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...  And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

I argue that the faith of the founders of the United States planted the unalienable right of liberty into the soil of this country. And from that fertile  ground grew scientific contributions too many to number.   This goes far beyond a "little connection" or two ships passing in the night.   I think that faith has served as a tug which pulled science out of the harbor into the deep waters.  Yes science started before the foundation of America, but the connection of faith and science has a rich history.  

Your thoughts on the connection of faith and science are more than welcome.  I'd also like to pick your brain on the Dr. Krauss lecture in general and in particular his quote, "Science may enrich faith, but not visa versa." 

There's also some interesting overlap with the "One Giant Leap" contributions, which you should see if you haven't already.  (Oh yeah, don't forget to vote there too!)

Updated 1/20/09: Rocket Scientist  is "Joining in the Worm Toss" of this conversation.  Be sure to pick up the thread there too because is has some excellent discourse that merits your time regardless of where you stand on this issue. 

Update 1/21/09: Picture updated.

What's in a name? The Cambridge University Colleges

When was the divorce decree issued, making official the separation of the faith/reason or faith/science marriage?  If you look strictly at the naming of Cambridge University colleges the end of the 19th century corresponds well with Schaeffer's "Line of Despair".  Pre-20th century colleges at Cambridge include: 

• Trinity Hall, founded 1350
• Corpus Christi, f. 1352
• Magdalene, f. 1428
• St. Catharine's, f. 1473
• Jesus, f. 1496
• Christ's, f. 1505
• St. John's, f. 1511
• Trinity, f. 1546
• Emmanuel, f. 1584
• St. Edmund's, f. 1896

After St. Edmund's, the colleges are exclusively secular in name, including among others:

• New Hall
• Churchill
• Darwin
• Robinson

Granted that among those early religiously named are also colleges named for secular dignitaries, mostly royalty (King's College, Queens, Clare, etc...)  Granted that the earlier colleges were first training grounds for the clergy, then took on the secular academic role.  Also granted that there continue to be seminary subjects within the modern colleges.    But the see-saw which once tilted heavily toward faith-centered thought, turned on it's fulcrum (seemingly in the late 1800's) and now faith-based-thought dangles with it's little legs kicking the air across from a bloated non-faith-based-thought see-saw partner.  (To stretch a metaphor and over-use hyphens!)

The "what" of this transition seems beyond doubt, the "when" and "where" are clear but less certain.   To me, the "why" and "how" are the least clear, up for the most debate, and  the most interesting.  

My preference is that the tyke at the top of the see-saw starts growing up and that the chubby guy at the other end should call Jenny Craig.  But that both stay on and play.  Because you know what happens when one jumps off.

An Unholy Marriage in Newton's Principia

Newton's masterpiece  Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (or, "The Principia") stands as one of the most important scientific texts in history.   But modern people who read it have major problems with it (and not just because it is exceedingly thick and technical).  There are problems at one's gut level when it is examined.  Why? An odd marriage of faith and science within the same volume.  It was not odd for Newton's time, but is for ours.  He pairs theology along with the codification of the laws of motion, gravity, and geometric proofs.  An example of the theology from The Principia:

The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God, the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not say, my Eternal, your Eternal, the Eternal of Israel, the Eternal of Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect: these are titles which have no respect to servants. The word God' usually signifies Lord; but every lord is not a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God: a true, supreme, or imaginary dominion makes a true, supreme, or imaginary God. And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity and infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present.

Our squirming has no end.  Many modern scientists squirm because their cart typically isn't attached to that horse.  What was the last issue of Nature or Scientific American to have theological contributions?  But many Christians squirm because their cart is attached to that horse, but a different breed.  Newton's public faith often deviated from traditional doctrine.    

The source (but unnecessary, I believe) of the unease is the separation of faith and science as disciplines.  Francis Schaeffer argues that humanity crossed "The Line of Despair" in the early 1900's where faith and reason were ultimately separated and people were forced to live either in the lower story of a house (reason) or the upper story (faith), but not both upstairs and downstairs within the post-modern framework.  Perhaps a lion's share of moderns' unease with The Principia, is that Newton lived on both stories of the house at once.  Or rather, he had no separate stories, just one unified abode where faith and reason lived together, shared meals, and (probably) argued about whether the toilet paper roll should pull up or down. 

In his book Orthodoxy, GK Chesterton describes the terrible result of the effort to separation faith from reason:

With a long and sustained tug we have attempted to pull the mitre off pontifical man; and his head has come off with it.