14AR19-25

( - previous issue - )

Apologia Report 19:25 (1,208)

August 6, 2014

Subject: How do the heavens (still) declare the glory of God?

In this issue:

ASTRONOMY - deep ways that the heavens reveal intelligent design

ISLAM - a liberal academic protests the limits of relativism

------

ASTRONOMY

"Do the Heavens Declare the Glory of God?" by Owen Gingerich, Professor Emeritus of Astronomy and History of Science at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, MA -- in light of the astounding modern discoveries regarding the vastness of space, "We are no longer in ecstasy about the beauty of creation, but we are instead crushed down by our insignificance in the vastness of the universe."

Gingerich explains that the solution to this attitude is merely the need to dig a little deeper. He begins by asking "what is the consequence of a universe being so old?" His answer is that there is an interesting reason that carbon was not included in the "initial brew" of the Big Bang.

"In those first few minutes, the universe was cooling down so rapidly that the Big Bang was over before the heavier atoms had a chance to be formed. To get around this obstacle requires lots more time, like billions of years. That is why we need a very old universe, to get the building blocks for life."

Gingerich appeals to statements by the 1950s "maverick British astronomer" Fred Hoyle, who predicted the energy level of the inner structure of the carbon nucleus before science could determine it for certain: "Four percent lower, and there would be essentially no carbon." Regarding the discovery of this necessary "resonance at a precise energy level," Hoyle wrote in the CalTech alumni magazine <www.ow.ly/zTTEh>: "Would you not say to yourself, 'Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule.' Of course, you would ... A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

Gingerich also notes that "The British Astronomer Royal, Martin Rees, has written a book entitled Just Six Numbers [1]. In it, he points out six numbers that describe our physical world whose precise values are essential for a life-bearing universe. Tweak them only slightly and our universe would be devoid of life. These and other very sensitively set numbers are what we refer to as fine tuning."

At the end of his life, Hoyle, "a public skeptic," wrote [2]: "There are very many aspects of the universe where you either have to say there have been monstrous coincidences, which there might have been, or alternately, there is a purposive scenario to which the universe conforms." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 66:2 - 2014, pp113-117. We enthusiastically choose the latter.

---

ISLAM

"Is Judging Islamic Culture Possible?" by Terri Murray, professor of Philosophy and Film Studies, Hampton College of Fine Arts & Humanities, London -- "argues that ijtihad [an Islamic legal term that means 'independent reasoning'] and cultural debate are essential in a liberal, multicultural society." While many of our readers may regard much of the article forbiddingly academic in tone, the concessions and conclusions in Murray's protest against the limits of relativism are substantial and deserve attention from conservatives.

Murray opens by reporting that "Pluralist multiculturalism and identity politics appear to be creating a crisis of liberal values. Or perhaps I'm just the last person to realise that liberal values went out of fashion over a decade ago. Back then I was too busy crusading for LGBT and women's rights to notice that no one actually believes in human rights any more. After all, rights are implicit in liberal universalism and inclusivity, and as such constitute embarrassing forms of 'cultural imperialism.'

"Multiculturalism is not just a synonym for 'cultural diversity'. Rather, it is an approach states adopt in dealing with the relationships between specific cultures and other members of society. *Liberal* multiculturalism - of which I am an advocate - accepts diversity within a broadly liberal framework, and therefore rejects any intolerant or authoritarian cultural practices that violate the equal rights of others (including 'others' from within the same minority community) to pursue their own vision of the 'good life'. By contrast, *pluralist* multiculturalism is the view that universal suffrage, equal legal status and entitlements, and equality of opportunity are not sufficient. In addition, pluralist multiculturalism requires legal privileges or exclusions that enable cultural groups to maintain their distinctive practices. ...

"Part of the pluralist multiculturalist agenda is to push for value pluralism and moral relativism. ... From such a perspective, it becomes a kind of 'sin' to be anything other than a relativist. Accordingly, if one attempts to deploy an objective or universal view of human rights, one would run the risk of being accused of intolerance or colonialism."

From here Murray goes on to discuss opposition to critiques of Islamic culture. And here she points out: "I want to argue ... that liberal values are essential to protecting the values of toleration and diversity that multiculturalists cherish.

"Let me begin by dissecting some of the arguments used by pluralist multiculturalists in defending Islam from the sort of critical examination that might be leveled against any other religion in a modern liberal state. ...

"Many of pluralism's left-wing academics and journalists have moved away from the core liberal idea that individuals are primary, and that their rights to self-determination and individual development trump any debt of obedience or respect they may owe to the social institutions or communities to which they belong. Instead, it has become somewhat fashionable to say that culture comes before the individual and defines her identity. A large part of what we mean by 'culture' is socialization. ...

"Cultural relativism also neglects the fact that individuals belong simultaneously to many cultures or subcultures that shape their identities."

As she nears her conclusion, Murray asks: "Why are culturally sensitive anti-racist liberals so laden with guilt about their own 'cultural insensitivity' (racism?) while apparently seeing sexism as negligible? We must ask why the Islamists' right to self-determination vis-à-vis Western law is more important than the right to self-determination of some who live under its legal strictures. ... The idea that sexism is only 'wrong' because of Western liberal cultures's assumptions, but not wrong in any universal way that could make a religion's discriminatory practices objectively unethical, applies equally to the West's taboo of racism. The liberal value of egalitarianism that makes racism an abomination is, according to the relativist's outlook, just a cultural 'construct' with no independent validity and no objective moral claim on anyone else ...

"It is often pointed out that criticism of Islam should only be allowed if it is *informed* criticism. While this is certainly preferable for commentary on any subject, all too often the demand for more accurate or complete information again forecloses debate over the most contentious beliefs or practices by sliding into the perfectionist fallacy; that unless you know *everything* about Islam, you can't know *anything* about it."

Grasping clumsily for an analogy, Murray writes that "If we regard our most reasonable values in the manner of Holy Scripture, with unquestioning obedience and blind faith, we risk becoming as narrow-minded as the acolytes of Westboro Baptist.

"While it is preferable for non-Muslims to speak to Muslims themselves about Islam, rather than assuming we know all about their experiences, the kind of cultural sensitivity that is supposed to inform genuinely respectful relations between Westerners and Muslims apparently does not apply to relations *between Muslims themselves.* ... The point here is that while culturally sensitive liberals have a commendable desire to end the stereotyping of Muslims by Westerners, they fail to apply the same standards to the stereotyping of Muslims by one another, and they fail to see that there are many motives for wishing to criticize Islamic teachings or practices other than latent racism."

Murray marvels that "no one from the liberal 'Islam defenders' camp has ever suggested that feminists can't be ridiculed or publicly scorned." She concludes that "liberal multiculturalism offers a framework within which all people can live their faith, be prevented from coercing others into doing so, and remain free to offend, and be offended by, others in an open, dynamic, sometimes uncomfortable (but genuine) dialogue." Philosophy Now, May/Jun '14, pp16-18.

-------

SOURCES: Monographs

1 - Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe, by Martin Rees (Basic, 2001, paperback, 208 pages) <www.ow.ly/zTTrQ>

2 - Origin of the Universe and the Origin of Religion, by Sir Fred Hoyle (Moyer Bell, 1993, hardcover, 91 pages) <www.ow.ly/zTTZM>

--------

( - next issue - )