Faith and Reason

Though opposing faith against reason seems to be a modern issue resulting from a scientific mindset opposing faith, the difference between faith and reason has been long understood in the Church, centuries before the modern scientific age.   St. Isaac the Syrian for example sees faith as greater than reason/knowledge because knowledge really deals only with the things of this world while faith deals with things beyond this world.  Knowledge is thus limited to the study of nature, but then there exists the world beyond nature – divinity, spiritual beings, heaven, the soul.  The natural world has its edges and limits, and thus knowledge is bound and limited.  The life beyond nature is an existence which might be boundless, and thus is greater than nature itself.

“For knowledge is opposed to faith; but faith, in all that pertains to it, demolishes laws of knowledge—we do not, however, speak here of spiritual knowledge. For this is the  definition of knowledge: that without investigation and examination it has no authority to do anything, but must investigate whether that which it considers and desires is possible… but faith requires a mode of thinking that is single, limpidly pure, and simple, far removed from any deviousness. See how faith and knowledge are opposed to one another! The home of faith is a childlike thought and a simple heart… But knowledge conspires against and opposes both these qualities. Knowledge in all its paths keeps within the boundaries of nature. But faith makes its journey above nature.”  (The Spiritual World of St. Isaac the Syrian, page 257)

Faith is to Be Happy

“…Faith in the trust that forms friendship, hope in the vision of a future where God will finally prevail, and love in the forgiveness that is a human possibility only because it is first a divine reality. Working together to complete and perfect the classical virtues, these new virtues enable us to ‘become partakers of the divine nature’ (2 Pet. 1:4). When St. Paul declares that ‘[h]e who through faith is righteous shall live’ (Rom. 1:17) and that ‘by grace you have been saved by faith’ (Eph. 2:8), he is not speaking of an abstract doctrine that we are called to affirm as a bare intellectual proposition. To have faith is not to credit a set of ideas that await either proof or disproof. Certainly it is true that faith has real cognitive content – namely, the articles of belief set forth in the various creeds and confessions. Summarily stated, these statements of faith affirm that the triune God has acted in Israel and Christ to create his unique people called the church and, through it, to redeem the world.

Even so, faith is not the same thing as knowledge. Nor is faith something that we are required morally to do – to perform meritorious acts, for example, that win the favor of God. Surely Christian faith issues in a distinctive way of life; indeed, it is a set of habits and practices – of worship and devotion, of preaching and the sacraments. Faith is always made active and complete in good works, says the Epistle of James; in fact, ‘faith apart from works is dead’ (Jas. 2:22,26). Yet faith is not first of all to be understood as exemplary action. At its root and core, faith is always an act of trust if it is to possess true knowledge and to produce true works. People having simple minds and accomplishing small deeds can have profound faith. Whether old or young, bright or dim, mighty or weak, we are all called to be childlike before God. Faith is the total entrustment of ourselves to the God who has trustworthily revealed himself in Israel and Christ. It is the confidence that this true God will dispose of our lives graciously, whereas we ourselves would make wretchedly ill use of them. This means that faith entails a radical risk, for God both commands and grants faith without offering material threat of punishment or earthly promise of reward. To be sure, the life of disobedience incurs divine wrath, just as the life of faith springs from divine mercy. The right relation between God’s anger and pity is defined in the fine phrase of Jeremy Taylor, a seventeenth-century Anglican divine: ‘God threatens terrible things if we will not be happy.’ To have faith is to have the life of true felicity already within us, as we learn gladly to participate in God’s own Trinitarian life of trusting self-surrender. Because God’s communal life centers upon the perfect and unconditional self-giving of each person of the Trinity to the other, so does the life of faith entail the complete offering of ourselves to God and our neighbors. Such an astounding act could never be a human achievement: it is a miraculous divine gift. There is nothing within our human abilities that could produce faith. On the contrary, it is our free and trusting response to the desire for God that God himself has planted within us.

LordofRingsGod is utterly unlike Melkor and Sauron because he never coerces. We are never forced but always drawn to faith, as God grants us freedom from sin’s compulsion. We are invited and persuaded to this act of total entrustment through the witness to the Gospel made by the church. Even when faith is an act of knee-bent confession alone in one’s own room, it is not a solitary and individual and private thing: faith is both enabled and sustained by the body of Christ called the church, the community of God’s own people.” (Ralph C. Wood, The Gospel According to Tolkien, pp 117-119)

Evangelism, Skepticism and Miracles

Plato & Aristotle
Plato & Aristotle

One way that the modern world differs from the ancients – the ancients often felt that a great teacher is to be believed simply by their reputation.  Moderns rely more on a scientific method of evaluation – test and verify.  It is not the reputation of the claimant that determines the validity of the truth, test the truth itself.  Thus ancients tended to accept Aristotle’s science largely based on his reputation and repeated his ideas for many centuries, apparently disregarding observation at times because the evidence didn’t agree with Aristotle’s thinking.

Similarly, we also see the Patristic authors accepting, for example, the wisdom of Solomon based on Solomon’s reputation in tradition and the scriptures.  Because he was viewed as the wisest of men based on the claims of Scripture, Solomon’s writings were given added weight, accepted as irrefutable truth.  If Solomon said something, it must be true, though we might have to discover in what way is it true.    St. Basil the Great writing in the 4th Century says:

“After all, when a teacher has a trustworthy reputation, it makes his lessons easier to accept and his students more attentive.”  (ON CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE AND PRACTICES, p 54)

EinsteinObviously, on one level St. Basil’s words are as true today as they were 1600 years ago: if a person has an established reputation we do take their words more seriously and give them added weight (think  Albert Einstein, for example).  But, today the reputation itself is built upon the person’s ideas being tested and proven true.  And for us, the test is based on a scientific method where a person’s ideas can actually be proven false and only if they survive rigorous testing are they held to be true.  Again one can think of Albert Einstein’s theories – despite his great reputation and a great track recorded of his ideas being upheld by scientific scrutiny, 100 years after his ideas were expressed, they are still being tested against the known evidence and not accepted until proven true, or at least as long as the evidence doesn’t prove them wrong.

St. Basil writes about the evidence that would convince him ideas are to be accepted.  So he says of the wisdom literature of Solomon:

“Now the very fact that a king wrote this book greatly contributes to the acceptance of its exhortations.  For if kingship is a legitimate authority, it is clear that the counsels given by a king – at least if he is truly worthy of this designation – have great legal force…” (ON CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE AND PRACTICES, p 55)

For St. Basil the fact that Solomon was a king adds weight to what he says – a king has a special authority and his words are more trustworthy than others because of the office he holds.  This sense that by virtue of one’s office, one’s words are more trustworthy is also an idea held more by ancients than modern people.   Today, there is a great amount of distrust of political authority, so much so that we have popular wisdom which says: “How can you tell if a politician is lying? . . .   If his mouth his moving.”

reaganJust think of the words of President Ronald Reagan:  “Trust but verify.”  That certainly is the more modern attitude.  We are much more skeptical of ideas, even if they come from kings because scientific thinking enshrines skepticism as wisdom.  Just because a king or even a saint says something doesn’t necessarily make it true – the ideas have to be tested against the evidence to be verified.  Great thinkers of the past may be well known, but their ideas are given regard only if they are proven to be true.  Aristotle is of great historic interest but he is no longer read or taught as offering real science.

This skepticism is part of what makes trusting religion so difficult for many modern people.  It is why modern believers if desiring to witness to the truth to non-believers must be so careful in what we say or do.  Every word and action of ours will be examined and efforts will be made to verify them.  If they can’t be verified that will lead to even more skepticism and disbelief.  We would be wise to remember the words of Christ: “I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter; for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” (Matthew 12:36-37)

Thus it doesn’t help our cause in witnessing to the world to make dubious claims, or to point to miracles, real or imagined, as they won’t necessarily convince the skeptic.  At best they may cause them to seek verifying evidence, but more likely it will cause further skepticism and even distrust of Christians.  In an age of skepticism, witnessing to the truth comes to mean something different than it did for ancients who might more readily appeal to the reputation of saints and kings as proof of the claimed truths.  Probably our best witness is the lives we live,  not the miracles we claim.

If, therefore, the whole church assembles and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad? But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.  (1 Corinthians 14:20-25)



Christ is Born in Us

“The providence of God does not conform itself to our desires. He works, as we have seen, through the scandals.

So it is not by sight, but by faith that we live (cf. 2 Cor. 5:7),  faith that God is indeed still at work in the same manner: in and through the virgin Church – not the institution that would like to avoid scandal by having everything in good order – but the virgin Church who is a scandal to others because she remains true to Christ, the one marginalized by society, persecuted and looked upon with scorn and derision, the one who in this way still manifests in this world the transforming presence of the broken body of Christ, the one who still gives birth to Christ, to sons of God. We can therefore take heart from what we have heard today.

For if we believe what we have said about how God does indeed rule creation and its history, arranging everything providentially for the manifestation of his Christ, then taking our stand upon the same firm rock of Christ, we will be able to affirm that, despite all the chaos in which we find ourselves, everything – every aspect of our lives – is held within his providence, as a way of leading us to him. But we will not see this if we approach him on our terms, with our expectations, desires, and presuppositions; only if we approach him on his terms, the one who said that his strength is made perfect in weakness, will we begin to understand, and indeed see, how God is ruling all creation, arranging everything for the revelation of the sons of God.

Let us pray, then, that we may have faith to know that God is unexpectedly at work even now in unsuspected ways, that we may respond to the work of God, and become the vessels of his mighty power, so that Christ may truly be born in us.” (John Behr, The Cross Stands While the World Turns, pp 114-115)

Genetics: Ethics and Editing

DISCOVER MAGAZINE’s January 2016 issue is devoted to the top science news stories of the year 2015.  I’m not a scientist but am fascinated with what science is doing, especially on the cutting edge.


Number 10 on the list of stories is “The Ethics of Editing Human Embryos.”  Science is never simply about data and proving or disproving theories.  All activities in science and technology involve decisions that can affect human life and therefore have an ethical dimension.  There are two very different questions when it comes to any specific scientific experiment:  Can it be done?  AND  Should it be done?

So the magazine reports researchers are applying those to questions to human genetic engineering.  The potential for good is very alluring.

doublehelix“Imagine if genetic diseases could be removed from the very biological code of our species — a future in which the likes of hemophilia, cystic fibrosis or dozens of other afflictions are simply edited out of human embryos.”

If doctors could simply remove the code for certain diseases from the human genome, there would be great rejoicing in the medical world and in the population as a whole.  The trouble comes with the word “simply” for indeed a tool has emerged in biology which makes changing the DNA of embryos fairly easy:  the gene-editing system known as CRISPR/ Cas9.   However, the success of the technology on human embryos has had not positive results.  Chinese scientists tested the technology on 86 human embryos, “But the editing worked for only four of the embryos and created numerous unintentional mutations.”  It is these unintentional mutations that have alarmed some scientists.

“Those accidental mutations illustrate the concerns some scientists have about using the tool in humans. Earlier in the year, when the Chinese team’s experiment was still a rumor, 18 researchers co-authored a letter in Science that called for the community to address the ethical questions and potential hazards of using CRISPR in humans. Until we can wield CRISPR more precisely and understand the implications of its use more fully, said the scientists, it should not be used on humans.”

Introducing “unintended” consequences into the human gene pool should alarm all scientists.  This is science fiction horror come to real life.   Once such mutations were introduced into the gene pool, the entire future population of humans could be at risk.  So a battle against certain diseases might be won, but a war on being human would be lost.

In the same issue of DISCOVER MAGAZINE, story #66, “One Little Gene Could Explain Our Big Brains”, we read about what a difference one gene can make.  Neurobiologists discovered a “DNA snippet” that is present in humans, Neanderthals and Denisovans, but not in chimpanzees.  These scientists are becoming more convinced that this one gene might in fact explain the difference between human and chimp brain size and development.

The introduction or removal of one little gene in the human genome can have massive effects on the species – as big as the difference between chimps and humans who otherwise share 99% of the genome. So those researchers and scientists who are alarmed about using the new technology to tamper with the makeup of human embryos have much to be concerned about – as do we all.  DISCOVER MAGAZINE notes:

“Despite the concerns, in September researchers at the Francis Crick Institute in London applied to the United Kingdom’s governing authority on fertility research for permission to use CRISPR on human embryos. The need for clear guidelines has spurred the organization of an international summit on human gene editing. As of this writing, it was scheduled for early December in Washington, D.C.”

It is not only scientists who have a stake in this.  This is of concern to all humans.  And while some will label those concerned about where science might go with this technology as being reactionary or alarmist, all humans should be concerned about the ethical issues of this science.  And it should be noted that even if scientists propose “clear guidelines” on the use of this technology on embryos, guidelines won’t stop researchers who want to push the limits of science or ethics, not to mention the very big concern these days over terrorist and rogue governments.   As is reported in the magazine articles, even with some scientists issuing alarms about what is happening in genetic editing, there are already scientists applying for permission to go ahead with the research.  What ethics guides them?

This is why Christians need to be following what is trending in science.  Humans, though created in the image of God, can have that image altered genetically.  And God only knows what that will introduce into the human race.

Wrestling with God: Struggling to Make Sense of the World

Faith in God has not come easy for everybody.  The Scriptures themselves prevent some of God’s chosen people as not only wrestling with faith in God, but in Israel’s case (Genesis 32:24-32), wrestling with God Himself!  Protestant Professor Frances Young offers a brief history of this wrestling with God, which has become a metaphor for the modern humans struggle with faith in a world that often makes no sense.

Abraham offers Isaac

“Our condition is profoundly shaped by modernity. Since the Enlightenment, European culture has been struggling with the question of God. Wrestling with God’s existence or goodness began in earnest with the Lisbon earthquake of 1755. Suddenly, for thinkers across Europe, it no longer made sense to speak of a created order ruled by a gracious providence when tens of thousands had apparently died senselessly. This could hardly be the best of all possible worlds, …

The dehumanized and industrialized genocide of the Holocaust not only demonstrated ‘man’s inhumanity to man’ but also called into question the idea of the biblical God who protected his chosen people. The advent of radio and television has revealed the sheer ongoing scale of human suffering and atrocity…  

Dachau Crematorium
Dachau Crematorium

God’s morality is in question, and the best option after Auschwitz appears to be atheism… So, over the past three centuries Europeans have wrestled with a God who turned out to be powerless…  Yet for some, including myself, wrestling with God has been a desperate plea for blessing, hanging in there like Jacob, and getting lamed in the process… My account of patristic interpretation had Gregory (Nazianzus) as its climax because he provides the clue to one way in which this story might speak. In the end it is the creature that is disabled, defeated in the attempt to know God. For the whole nature of God is beyond creaturely comprehension…

For at the heart of that struggle with God is an experience of loss of security and self-sufficiency, of being put in one’s place. In the end it is not that we judge God – rather God judges us; and that implies a need to reconfigure our notions of God. We imagine we are in control, we make up our minds, we decide whether we are religious or not, we choose whether to seek God or not. But the whole point is that we are mere limited creatures, vulnerable, far from in control, certainly not capable of grasping the reality of God…

 Aseitas simply means the power of a being to exist absolutely in virtue of itself, requiring no cause, no other justification for its existence except that its very nature is to exist. There can be only one such Being: that is God. And to say that God exists a se, of and by reason of Himself, is merely to say that God is Being Itself. Ego sum qui sum… Pondering the book of Job, that intense debate about God’s goodness within the Bible, I began to discern that the answer to Job’s questioning was simply the fact that he found himself in God’s presence. In God’s presence all the questions just fade away, as you realize the immensity of the infinite, divine reality with which you are confronted.” (Frances M. Young, Brokenness & Blessing, pp 49-51)

Thomas Sunday (2012)

“The Church refers to the hesitant apostle as ‘Doubting Thomas,’ the unbeliever, and it is significant that it commemorates him specifically the first week after Pascha, calling it ‘Thomas Sunday’. For of course, it reminds us not only about Thomas, but about each person, about humanity. My Lord, what a desert of fear, of mindlessness, and of suffering has mankind produced with all of its progress and all of its synthetic happiness! It has reached the moon, it has overcome distances, has conquered nature, yet it seems that no words of Holy Scripture so well express the state of the world as ‘the whole creation has been groaning in travail’ (Rom 8:22). It truly groans and suffers, and in the midst of the suffering resounds that proud and senseless and fearful declaration: ‘If I do not see, I will not believe.’ But Christ had pity on Thomas and came to him and said: ‘Put our finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing’ (Jn 20:27). And Thomas fell before him on his knees and exclaimed: ‘My Lord and my God!’ (Jn 20:28). It was the end of his pride, his self-assurance, his self-satisfaction: I am not gullible like all of you, you can’t fool me. He yielded, he believed, he gave himself – and in that instant he achieved that freedom, that happiness and joy, those very things for which he refused simply to believe, expecting proofs.” (Alexander Schmemann, O Death Where is Thy Sting?, pgs. 67-69)

The Brainless Bible and the Mindless Illusion of Self (II)

“As in water face answers to face, so the mind of man reflects the man.” (Proverbs 27:19, RSV)

The 1st blog in this series is The Brainless Bible and the Mindless Illusion of Self 

Recent claims by some, especially neo-atheist writers, that neuroscience had in fact ‘proven’ that there is no such thing as self or free will but rather these experiences were an illusion created by brain cells, prompted me to look more into the topic and so I read a couple of books by scientists which temper or oppose the claims of the neo-atheists.

The Bible itself is brainless in the sense that it doesn’t mention the brain, that large organ of the nervous system which is so highly developed in humanity.  The Bible does speak numerous times of “mind.”  (Volumes have been and can still be written about the meaning of and the relationship between terms like brain, mind, self, soul, intellect, heart, person, and how these terms are understood differently in various biblical and Patristic contexts).  The biblical perspective is not based in the modern notion of materialism, so doesn’t see a need to connect or found everything in materialism.  Thus the bible offers no explanation about the connection between mind, self and the brain; even the need to do so would not have occurred to the biblical writer.  The authors of the Bible were also not dualists, so they didn’t oppose mind to matter but saw them both as being part of God’s creation;  mind, matter and soul all belong to the created world and so share created nature.

It really will be viewing the bible through such lenses as Platonism, Aristotelianism and modern scientific materialism that will force a dualistic interpretation on the biblical claims by imposing on them a logic and philosophy that wasn’t part of the inspired mindset of the biblical authors.

Modern science and philosophy are asking questions that the biblical authors could not even imagine.  The biblical authors were not trying to answer modern scientific and philosophical concerns which leaves today’s believers with the arduous task of trying to bridge the gap in knowledge and understanding between the questions of modern science and what questions the biblical authors were answering.  But some of the assumptions of the neo-atheists, their philosophical presuppositions and biases, are based in their belief system (materialism) rather than in proven propositions.  I intend to look at these in this blog series.

There really is a lot at stake in all of this.  For it is one thing for scientists in labs to be studying the material universe and offering their scientific observations about the nature of things.  But the neo-atheists are pushing to apply their thinking to social engineering, creating humanity in the image of their philosophical and ideological values.   The Judeo-Christian tradition accepted a notion that humans had been created in the image and likeness of God, and yet we had fallen far from the perfect image.  The religious tradition however saw humans as capable of aspiring to divinity, to uplifting all of humanity to something greater.  The neo-atheists on the other hand want to reduce humans to the common denominator with all the rest of creation:  mere matter which like putty can be shaped into whatever humans decide with no ultimate ethical consequences since humans are nothing more than matter, just like any rock or junk that happens to exist in the universe.  The neo-atheistic thinking by denying self and free will also deny that there is any significance in anything we do to creation or to our fellow human beings.  We saw that thinking play out in the fascism of Germany and Japan in the 1940s and in communism of the 20th Century.    Social engineering based in some heartless rationalism is quite willing to inflict global suffering on humanity in the name of science and ideological beliefs.

In the next few blogs, I want to look at the writings of Michael S. Gazzaniga,  WHO’S IN CHARGE?:  FREE WILL AND THE SCIENCE OF THE BRAIN, and Raymond Tallis,  APING MANKIND:NEUROMANIA, DARWINITIS AND THE MISREPRESENTATION OF HUMANITY.  Both authors are critical of the claims which are being made as a result of the current neuroscientific research, but both are committed to the scientific method and to the basic claims of evolution.

Gazzaniga attempts to put a more positive spin on what neuroscience is discovering and how it might shape the human future:

“It is that magnificence of being ‘human’ that we all cherish and love and that we don’t want science to take away. We want to feel our own worth and the worth of others. I have tried to argue that a more complete scientific understanding of the nature of life, of brain/mind is not eroding this value we all hold dear. We are people, not brains. We are that abstraction that occurs when a mind, which emerges from a brain, interacts with the brain. It is in that abstraction that we exist and in the face of science seeming to chip away at it, we are desperately seeking a vocabulary to describe what it is we truly are.”  (Kindle Loc. 3450-55)

Gazzaniga presents the issue as more about our “feelings” about being human and that science only “seems” to be chipping away at our understanding of what it means to be human.   Yet his book shows ways in which some are attempting to use the new neuroscience to change society itself.

Tallis sees the risks and dangers to humanity that the ideologues of the new neuroscience represent in more stark terms.   The danger of what Tallis calls neuromania can be seen for example in the writings of Julian Savulescu who argues that  “as technology advances more rapidly than the moral character of human beings, we are in increasing danger.  We must therefore seek biomedical and genetic means to enhance the moral character of humanity.”    Savulescu is saying that it is biomedical tinkering and genetic engineering  which are going to be needed to help humanity deal morally with the changes being brought about by modern technology.    The belief that scientists can biomedically engineer a morally superior human being causes Tallis to conclude: “Be afraid, be very afraid.”

In the next few blogs I want to look at the science of evolution: are humans merely matter (even if highly organized) or is there something that distinguishes humanity from the rest of matter and even from the rest of the animal kingdom?

Next:  The Matter of Evolution

Free Will and Tradition

3 Holy Hierarchs

“But I must explain myself a little more clearly. A good many men do not draw their conclusions from the very nature of reality, but merely consider the way men have lived before them; and so they fall completely short of an accurate judgment about reality, and they take, as their criterion of what is good, irrational custom instead of sober reason. Hence they force their way into political office and power, they make a good deal of merely external show since they are unaware of the fact that all this will come to an end after this life. For custom is no sure guarantee for the future, for very often this may lead us to the goats and not to the flock of sheep. My meaning will become clear if you will consider the words of the Gospel. If you consider that which is proper to man, that is, his reason, you will despise the force of custom as irrational, and you will never choose as good that which brings no advantage to the soul. We must not then seriously consider the footprints of those who have gone before us like so many cattle leaving their trace upon the world. For what is best to choose is not clear from sense phenomena – nor shall it be until we depart from this life; then we will know whom we have followed. The man then who merely follows in the tracks of those who have lived before, and takes the custom of this world as his guide in life, and does not distinguish good from evil on the basis of actual reality, very often makes a mistake, and in the day of that just Judgment he becomes a goat instead of a sheep.” (Gregory of Nyssa, From Glory to Glory, pg. 161)

Free Will and Biology (PDF)

The blog series that began with  Environmental Clues, Shaping Behavior and Free Will (1)     and included 3 blogs commenting on Jerry Coyne’s USA  TODAY article  Why We don’t Really Have Free Will  is now available as one document as a PDF:  Free Will and Biology (PDF).

Coyne, a respected evolutionary biologist, is also philosophically committed to materialism and atheism.   He makes what for me is a puzzling argument that while there is no such thing as free will or consciousness or self (all illusions, he claims, created by biochemistry and genetics) that somehow a kinder, gentler humanity will emerge when we throw off the illusion of self and self control and  free will.  The argument is puzzling because if in fact as he argues we have no free will and everything we do is simply the end result of millions of years of biochemical evolution, and if in fact no non-material force can make material objects do anything, how will “knowledge” change our behavior?  It is some form of magical gnostic thinking.   It seems to me for Coyne to be consistent, he must acknowledge that we are merely the biochemical products of evolution and therefore cannot change our behavior (humans will be humans) because of genetic determinism and thus no conscious change in human behavior or social behavior is possible no matter whether we rely on science or religion.   Thus his optimism that acknowledging that there is no free will can alter human behavior is a gnostic belief – his own magical thinking which he so despises in theists.   He offers no proof (in fact I don’t think there is any) for his philosophical claims that a world guided by atheistic materialism will be one in which humans treat humans more humanely;  yet he claims to be guided purely by science not by a system of beliefs.    His assumptions and beliefs read into and re-interpret the science he selectively offers with the result being of course that his interpretation of the world proves what he believes.   This doesn’t seem to be the scientific method at all.

A list of my blog series available as PDFs is available at Blog Series Available as PDFs.