Howard Van Till’s lecture on cosmology had less to do with cosmology and more to do with how we all establish worldviews, which may have disappointed some but excited others.  

Van Till is quite familiar with the process of defending himself (he spent four years after publishing The Fourth Day defending his position of evolution [link: http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Howard_J_Van_Till] to Calvin College, where he worked at the time). I can see how thinking long and hard about one’s beliefs and where they came from would be a natural result of an inquisition. 

His main idea is that we all have Operative Depictions of Reality, which he jokingly refers to as Odors (or ODoRs, rather). Reality, as perceived by humans, is basically different for everyone. This doesn’t mean that everyone is right, of course, but that everyone has set up ways of seeing the world that help them feel comfortable in it and survive. (An example of this is folk science, which is beliefs about the natural world, but function to provide comfort and reassurance. And they may not even be correct.) 

Some of those beliefs, said Van Till, come from our “tribes,” or the different communities we come from — science, organized religion, geographical regions, etc. Some of those beliefs also come from our genetic hard-wiring, and it is a constant human struggle to reconcile the beliefs we obtain consciously and those we obtain subconsciously. 

Well, that’s all interesting, but how does it help theologians better converse with science?  

Van Till essentially breaks science and theology into two separate tribes that have different ways of understanding the world (in science, all is empirical; whereas theology warrants its beliefs by appealing to things like Scripture, official doctrines and communal assent.) Both are valid because they try to prove different things; for science those things are in the natural world and for theology they are in the realm of the supernatural. By understanding the different ways the tribes perceive the world, they can respect each other and back off of each other’s territory. It’s a turf war: Some scientists (Dawkins, Dennett…) have tried to explain away religion with science, which can’t be done. But some theologians try and put God too heavily into science (intelligent design proponents such as Bill Dembski), and that’s not where they belong. Van Till thinks everyone should stay on their own property. Good fences make good neighbors. 

The discussion ran the gamut: We had a sermon, an attack, and lots of questions.  

Pastor Greg Boyd reminded the group that Jesus didn’t operate with an ODoR. He wanted to tear down the fences between tribes, with all that loving thy neighbor stuff. 

John Wilson from Books & Culture thinks that if Van Till can invoke folk science as a way that people comfort themselves, then he has to realize that there is also folk theology, folk philosophy and folk sociology. And Van Till might be guilty of using them all in his worldview. 

The questions ranged from what would Van Till do if he were to set up his own faith-based college (he’d make sure the science faculty was interacting regularly with the rest of the school); how should open theologians interact with Intelligent Design (it’s fine, but don’t start thinking it’s science); what to do with the problem of evil (who knows!).

-Heather Ciras