End of a (shortish) era….

 

I am not sure what period of time an “era” is supposed to cover. One dictionary defines and era as “a long and distinct period of history”. But words like “long” and “distinct” are themselves a matter of interpretation. And history implies nothing more than a period that has passed. However, as far as my personal history is concerned, an era that began back in the pandemic has now come to an “official” end. You’ll have to judge for yourself whether it was either long or distinct.

Back in August 2021, in my “Life in the pandemic #31” post, I reflected on reverting to a student existence, swapping my staff card as Reader in Vision Science in the University of Liverpool for a student ID in the Union School of Theology. For anyone particularly interested in differences between the sciences and theology, I discussed a number of relevant issues subsequently (near the beginning of my journey here and here, and also here). How rapidly time moves on. The pandemic, such a significant event for all of us at the time, seems to have faded from the collective memory so quickly. Maybe this is a testimony to the rapid dissipation of the fear and dislocation experienced at the beginning of the crisis by the development and deployment of amazingly effective vaccines in super-quick time (something else that has rapidly faded from the collective memory). Like many others I altered course as we were emerging from the pandemic (although the two were not particularly connected), and embarked on Union’s MTh programme. But then, a few weeks ago, along with fellow students, staff, families and supporters, we assembled in Bridgend for the annual graduation ceremony, marking the official end of my studies. So, before this too fades from the memory, I thought it would be worth reflecting again.

I had anticipated that it would be quite a different experience from the one that I had enjoyed forty years ago as an undergraduate then a PhD student in the University of Glasgow. Apart from anything else I was "all growed up” (at least in theory), and was a proper adult learner. The inevitable angst of my late teens and earlier twenties were long departed. I confess that I had thought that this might mean that this time round learning would be more of a solitary occupation. Although the MTh was composed of a number of modules that required attendance at “intensive weeks” on campus with fellow students, most of the time was actually spent toiling back at my desk in my own study. And yet the best learning is always done in community. So I had the privilege of making new friendships on campus, which once we were away from the campus were sustained by the now-obligatory WhatsApp group. Indeed we had two of these – one official and the other our “100% unofficial” group. While it would be nonsense to pretend this was the same as sitting in a library with a group of like-minded dedicated scholars for months, it turned out to be quite a good way of maintaining the group vibe. Would I have preferred a more complete campus experience? Perhaps. But us adult learners tend to accumulate lots of connections and responsibilities that make upping and relocating to a new place of study basically impossible.

All of us bar one were undertaking our studies part-time, and most of my student colleagues were combining their studies with ministry or other forms of employment. Again, this made the distance option the only viable option. I was in the privileged position of not having to worry about such matters and was glad I didn’t have to divide my time with lots of other things. My observation is that worked fine provided they were able to maintain study time, and that they paced their studies to fit into the time they had available. Where study time was encroached upon, then learning was impacted. What mass education rather obscures is that real learning cannot be rushed, it takes as long as it takes. And because we are all different, we learn in different ways and at different speeds. This has nothing to do with basic intelligence, and a lot to do with interest and discipline. Where all that is desired is a piece of paper, disconnected facts, a vague knowledge of the  propositions of others and the odd incoherent opinion, then study can be squeezed into odd pockets of time. But none of us were interested in this. And it would have ill-served the church at large that many of us had in mind as the eventual main beneficiary of our efforts.

We were, of course, all highly interested in these particular studies (theology isn’t called a vocation for nothing). For all of us, returning to such study was a demanding step, and for some a sacrificial one. We were highly motivated. Many of us had already read and thought quite widely in generally theological ways. And yet I think we all found that wide vistas of new material opened up before us under the guidance of those who taught us at Union. But in our exploration of these new lands (some much less familiar than others) we were able to explore together, indeed in a fellowship. This provided encouragement, comfort and stimulus. Lots more material to blog about in the future.

And a word too about our teachers. Having been one in another life, it would be remiss of me not to mention the high quality of teaching we benefited from. Across a series of taught modules, I had the impression of being taught by people who knew what they were talking about. People who have lived and reflected on the material they were passing on. One can tell. I have no doubt there is some Masters level teaching going on in UK institutions being delivered by put-upon postgraduates who would rather be doing something else. There is certainly room for postgraduates teaching Masters students. The good ones do it well, and we all had to start somewhere; this is no criticism of them as a group. But when it occurs simply because too many students have been recruited to a particular programme (usually for financial reasons), and someone has to teach them something, it is largely a waste of everyone’s time. And when it is really bad it becomes a disincentive to any real learning. We had none of that. We were well served by well-prepared and thoughtful lecturers, who clearly took their task seriously. As a result, the MTh was often what education at its best is – inspiring. And it generated that desire to know more.

There were challenges of course. Some of my colleagues who had been away from academia for a while were rather freaked out by some of the requirements that had to be met. Chief among these were the assignments that were required for assessment. There is no doubt that academic writing is a skill that has to be mastered. Some essentials, such as appropriate referencing, strike normal human beings as overly prescriptive and time consuming to no good end. But there is a good end, primarily the clear citation of sources so that they can be checked and consulted. There is nothing worse that reading a really good argument, in which really interesting material has been analysed or synthesised (or both), and then being completely thwarted in investigating further because the sources haven’t been referenced properly or fully. This simply subverts proper inquiry. And it also  denies those who have preceded us of their proper recognition. While there are good pragmatic reasons for referencing, at root it is a matter of integrity. So while I would not claim that I was exactly happy to have to spend the odd afternoon grappling with the requirements for the citation of sources in the Chicago Manual of Style (17^th Edition!), I recognised its necessity. And I think some of my colleagues came to as well. But this was a minor wrinkle, the memory of which is more than matched by so many more interesting incidents and experiences.

So, farewell Union chums. But rather than the end of an era, it is perhaps more like the inauguration and early stages of a new one. And one that I’m now better equipped for. More theology to come then....

It’s (as yet) all Greek to me

I’ve mentioned my studies a couple of times (see here and here). Alas, formally they are now over. I say alas because I have really enjoyed all of the process, content and, as it happens, the outcome. Perhaps it’s the academic in me. So, next summer, all being well, I shall graduate from Union. However, for tactical reasons I managed to avoid serious engagement with the original languages in which the Bible is written (primarily Hebrew and Greek). This was tactical because at my relatively advanced age learning a new language in the time available, essentially from scratch, would have been a big ask. I have picked up occasional words in both Hebrew and Greek in my MTh studies, and over the years from commentaries and articles. But I have no real understanding of the grammar of the languages, and the actual number of words I am familiar with you could probably count on the fingers of two hands and plus the toes of one foot. Given the time and assessment constraints in the MTh, there were lots of other things I wanted to study and (whisper it) I wanted to pass well. Still, this avoidance has led to the occasional pang of guilt. So with the MTh now complete, I have embarked on learning New Testament Greek with the help of some of Union's learning resources (which I still have access to as a current student). I hope to be of a suitable standard by graduation to contemplate taking some of the language modules on a “stand-alone” basis next session.

But why bother you might ask? After all, I actually believe in what is often called the doctrine of Scripture’s perspicuity. “Perspicuity” is to the contemporary mind a very opaque word meaning “clarity”. While “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves…” (to quote the Westminster Confession, 1.7), the really important things, like how God can be truly known, is so clearly taught that “not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” “Ordinary means” in this context is the reading and teaching of Scripture in our vernacular languages (ie in translation). This was a major point of contention in the Reformation and for a recent book-length defence of this position Mark Thompson’s “A Clear and Present Word” is worth a read. But it is not that there is a central kernel that can be generally understood, surrounded by lots of really hard stuff that should be left to “experts” (whatever that means). In the Old Testament, Israel was told to teach what God had revealed to their children (Deuteronomy 6:7) and it is emphasised that this is a far from impossible task; in general God’s words are both understandable and doable (Deuteronomy 30:11-14). In the New Testament, much of Jesus’ teaching is remarkably clear and straightforward. It’s not that the semantic content of both Jesus’ teaching and the rest of the New Testament, the words and concepts, are hard to understand. The real problem lies elsewhere. The very fist step to understanding is not essentially intellectual but spiritual, more about the heart than the mind. You can get an idea of what I mean by reading Ephesians 2:1-3. Ask yourself what the dead are capable of.

When God by His Spirit brings life where there was only death, and throws that switch that brings light where before there was darkness (akin to Jesus’ healings of the blind), the Bible comes alive in whatever language you happen to normally operate in. It remains God’s word and provides more than enough to keep any one of us going for more than a lifetime. Why, then, a need to get into the weeds of the original (or near to the original) Greek? Because they are not weeds and there is always more, layer after layer of nerve jangling, mind-stretching truth. But here are some immediate reasons. All translation involves interpretation. So the Bible translations that I use rely on the interpretations of others. Usually these are fine; no text can mean anything (something that the more extreme post-modernists got disastrously wrong) and only occasionally do different translations diverge significantly. But to be able to see where and why the divergence in English comes about, strikes me as valuable. And of course some divergent interpretations are occasionally based on a particular asserted meaning of the original text. To be able to go and check that there hasn’t been some twisting of the original, or that some linguistic fallacy isn’t being perpetrated (for a number of these see Don Carson’s “Exegetical Fallacies”), is also valuable. Then there is the pleasure of eventually being able to almost see into the mind of John and compare it with Paul, to develop a feel for their individual writing style. All of these seem to me to be real incentives for doing what will be hard work over an extended period.

So I’m currently on the initial slopes of the foothills. Some are quite steep. Others seem to be going on for quite a distance. My progress is sometimes slower than I would like. But the journey is a worthwhile one, and the view from the top will be glorious.

Why does science matter?

Although it’s really my last post that prompted this one, I am admittedly returning to something I’ve blogged about before. It was a while ago, so I won’t take it personally if you can’t remember what those particular posts were about. I’ll try not to repeat any of the specifics here as you can obviously go back and read them (eg here and here). But having opined about why theology matters (about which I know relatively little), it seemed only fair to reflect on what I spent most of my adult life working in.

However, there are a couple of issues we have to deal with first. Although it’s common to talk about “science” as though it is a single institution, it really isn’t. There is no single body that polices a rule book, and the reality is that there is no single agreed definition or set of rules. There is also no single agreed scientific method. It used to be thought that a single recipe for doing good science might be either discoverable or definable, and that a single, coherent method could be established. And of course the philosophers got busy trying to cook one up. But with due respect to the likes of Francis Bacon, John Locke, William Whewell, Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn, none of them really produced anything that you could pull off a shelf, apply to a problem and obtain a “scientific answer”. Indeed the most many of them managed was an attempt at describing what scientists actually did. This is an interesting exercise in its own right. Mind you, it has always seemed to me that they were overly infatuated with physics, from which they drew many of their key examples. If of course science is just one thing, and there is a single method, then why not start with an area of science that seems to have delivered. Perhaps this explains why “big physics” is often reported in the media and is supported by such massive sums of public money (over the last decade the UK has invested an average of £152M per year in CERN alone). Biology has usually suffered in comparison. The philosophers didn’t seem to like biology that much, it was maybe too wet and messy.

It’s odd, but all this philosophical effort, individually and cumulatively, has had relatively little impact on the activities of scientists themselves. By and large they just got on doing “it”, and apparently quite successfully. It looked like there might be a common core of things that were a good idea, things like collecting evidence, forming tentative explanations, and then testing these rather than just blithely accepting and asserting them. But single, codified, rigorous method? Not really. Occasionally, individual scientists were influenced by reading about what they were supposed to be doing in the writings of one or more of the aforementioned philosophers or thinkers (many of whom were not themselves scientists). They might try to construe their activities in the sort of terms they had read about. But this all tended to be rather post-hoc. Suspiciously, such accounts tended to crop up in books written at the end of careers, as though they were a relatively recent discovery.

Now this all may be a good or a bad thing. But part of the problem is that relatively few pure science degrees (particularly in the Anglo-Saxon world) provide a rigorous introduction to the intellectual procedures involved in science. There are lots of lectures, lots of learning about great previous experiments, occasional attempt to repeat them and so on. Such degrees are certainly fact-packed (and very often great fun too – mine was!). But as to the principles of how your thinking was supposed to operate, one was rather expected to simply imbibe or intuit this. To be fair, this is a criticism that has so often made, that in many degree programmes today there may be an optional module in the philosophy of science. But it is rarely a key component of the education of a young scientist. And this has the disturbing consequence of a highly skilled but philosophically unsophisticated workforce.

None of this means that science (in its various forms) has been generally unsuccessful; clearly it hasn’t. But one unwelcome effect has been the unfortunate inability of many of us scientists (and I include myself in this) to helpfully articulate why science has been successful, what its product has enabled, and why this all matters. What we often end up with is hubristic, triumphalist babble that can sometimes seem  more like paternalistic propaganda. Scientists do all have skin in the game of course, because many of us earn our money from the scientific enterprise. And the source of that money is very often hard-pushed taxpayers, and in the case of the health and clinical sciences, patients. When we try to explain what we’re up to and why it matters, we can sometimes sound rather as though we’re saying that you should simply trust us (and keep paying us) because we know what’s best, and it would be far too complicated to explain to you.

Now there is a sense in which this is true. These days the technical details are often complicated, and a degree of trust is required. But the problem is that because we have not articulated well enough or often enough how science works (in its various forms), trust is now rather lacking. This is illustrated by the range of responses to the undoubted success of the vaccines developed to combat the COVID19 pandemic. The mRNA vaccines that have been so successful are the product of a completely new approach to vaccine development that emerged from years of patient and largely unheralded basic science, working out the details of what goes on in cells at a molecular level. The speed at which this led to highly effective vaccines coming into use and saving lives was unprecedented. And yet, all over the world there is significant resistance to their use and a marked reluctance to their uptake.  

Part of the problem is that science doesn’t exist within a bubble. The “modern” world that science both grew up in and helped to shape, has now morphed into a very different context. Intellectual authority is now a weakness and trust has been undermined. We now have facts, duly established by tried and tested procedures (technical and intellectual) duelling in the media with alt-facts (opinion, suspicion and assertion dressed up as facts). And the individualism that stemmed from the same revolution that gave rise to modern science, means everyone is an expert who has to understand the evidence, even when everyone really isn’t an expert and really can’t weigh the evidence in an appropriate way.

Science really is the best way we have to generate certain types of reliable information of critical importance. It cannot answer any and all questions, but it has and can answer some really important ones. At the edges of course, there is scope for debate as to what is and what is not an appropriate question that can be answered scientifically. Over-claiming, often by prominent scientists, or putting down other approaches in non-scientific domains (like theology among others) has done science no favours. But make no mistake – science has mattered in the past, is making a big impact now, and will be needed in the future. It will continue to matter - bigtime.