Sets of facts and evolution, part 1.

EDIT: this is a quickly dashed out sketch of thoughts - this needs a lot of elaboration, but I thought it was interesting enough to put out even in an unfinished form in case people have comments. This touches on a couple things mentioned earlier in another post.

Some parts of the church are perhaps rightly skeptical about "modern philosophy", including the modern philosophy of science, so one should attempt to make arguments about evolution in a manner that respects a broad variety of philosophies of science rather than presuming a specific epistemology or, for instance, the correspondence theory of truth. There are certainly some positions that I think Christians are required to take (namely, that real knowledge of the material world is possible), but those are fairly minimal, as are their implications. Though even that one can be dispensed with if, as some do, one points out that we have "fallen" faculties of perception and therefore can't wholly trust them to ever give us knowledge of the material world (but see St Augustine's anti-skeptical argument).

In that case, then, and since the crowd I am most interested in dealing with is the YEC "Rose" crowd whose position implies that there is no death prior to perhaps around 10,000 years ago, we can deal with the "fact" of evolution rather than the "theory" of evolution. That is to say, dealing with the complex of facts that include a 4.5 billion year old earth, hundreds of millions of years of complex multicellular life, and a succession of organisms that slowly look more and more like the plants and animals we have today. But no "theorizing" yet, not even a consideration for, say, methodological naturalism. Somebody constructing a theory - whether it is naturalistic in methodology or not - has this pile of facts to contend with. If we come up with a new theory that is seriously at odds with this set of facts, we're not going to be very happy with that new theory.

The YEC will of course have some objections. First, that the earth is 4.5 billion years old is not a fact, it is a conclusion based on a theory plus some other facts. The facts are the instrument readings and astronomical observations and such that, when plugged into the model, spit out that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. This is certainly a fair objection. Another objection is that we are attempting to apply human reason beyond the "Fall of Man". This is less satisfactory for reasons that will become clearer later in my exposition.

The set of facts, then, that we have is the list of oscilloscope readings, dates of astronomical observations, etc that we have compiled. It is a giant list of facts. Let's call this set of facts Set A. With a rather small set of assumptions, we can then generate a rather minimal theory that gets us to an interpretation of Set A that suggests "the fact of evolution". This answers objection 1: we now have a set of facts and a theory accounting for those facts. The second objection, though is met with the following reply: "Great, provide your own accounting for the facts in Set A." They need not use the same assumptions as above. They just need to provide something that explains the facts as well and do so even if we withhold portions of the facts and then see how well the theory fitted without those facts still explains them. Or generate new facts and see how well those fit. The unfortunate thing here is that, even with the claim that knowledge of the world prior to the Fall is inaccessible to naturalistic methods or human reason absent divine revelation, they can't come up with theories that work as well to explain the facts. They are handwaving them away.

Now, of course, as Orthodox believers, we assent to all the truths that the Orthodox Church teaches. There is then a new strategy: we have a second set of facts, namely, the dogmatic assertions of the Orthodox Church. They say all the holy elders and all the Fathers of the Church taught young earth creationism. My point here, though, is that this is not, it turns out, a fact. It is an interpretation in light of a theory that requires certain assumptions and then into which they insert the facts, just as the 4.5 billion year old earth is not a fact. We can take as the atomic facts, perhaps, the manuscripts we have of Genesis, the writings of the Holy Fathers (and Mothers) of the Church, and the manuscripts of the pronouncements of church synods. And whatever other facts of this type that you may think of. We can call that Set B. The YEC "Rose" crowd, then, notes that, while they do not have a satisfactory model for A, they do have a satisfactory model for B and it is the only acceptable model for B. As such, they do not need to account for set A.

So far, I should not be saying anything controversial. Sure, there are thing to quibble with, like what I mean by "explaining" the facts. However, I hope we can pass over those quibbling details, because what matters here is the big picture about the two different stances. One group says that they have a set of assumptions and theories that gives a consistent explanation of set A. The other group says that they have a set of assumptions and theories that gives a consistent explanation of set B.

Here is my problem: I think the first group, the one that has a reasonable explanation for Set A can have a reasonable enough explanation for Set B - it doesn't catch all of the nuances, but it does not go outside the borders that we cannot go outside of, though it has to admit that many things are still left unknown. Fortunately, the Church itself strongly suggests that these issues of origins are somewhat shrouded in mystery, so that suggests a perfect explanation of B is not really obligatory.

Here is my other problem: the second group has immense difficulties with set A and I don't think the Church warrants sufficient confidence in their assumptions for set B to swallow the difficulties with A. It only really works well if you're going to deny that any knowledge of the physical world by naturalistic means is possible - which is a line of argument that has been used. This is already getting fairly long, so that will have to be part 2.

On Spiritual Abuse

I haven't personally been in a spiritually abusive environment, or at least not experienced one as such, but I do talk to a lot of people about their experiences with church and churches, good and bad. There's a somewhat serious/not-serious term: "Post-Traumatic Church Syndrome". There was a resolution about spiritual abuse at the All-American Council this year that was approved by the Synod. It's short, but reading it definitely helped me to make sense of a lot of the bad experiences people had told me about. Take a look at it!

But what strikes me is that there seems to be an entire movement, at least on the internet, which seems bent on glorifying some of the bad behaviors outlined in the document and presenting them as the Tradition (Canonical). Particularly the rigidity and legalism and the aspects of shaming people who don't follow all the unwritten rules. Those people are, of course, mostly laity, so it's not such a big deal, but it is still a problem.

The risk of anti-vaccination ideology in the Church

Any place where a large number of people assemble, particularly children, risks spreading infectious disease. While we certainly spend less time at church with children than we do at schools or day care centers or whatever, it is still a gathering, and it often bridges communities that don't necessarily regularly interact (ie, the children are not all at the same school). It is also one of the few places that, for instance, a newborn infant who is not old enough for vaccines will be brought. And then there are all the old people there, too.

Unfortunately, in some parts of Orthodoxy, they are infected with absurd magical thinking about vaccines. In fact, I have heard it reported that a substantial number of seminarians, even, are opposed to vaccines, and as the leader goes, so goes the community. The risk involved is very concrete: an infant too young to be immunized or an adult with a compromised immune system will catch some vaccine-preventable disease - in the case of infants, say, pertussis - and die. Pertussis is especially risky because the current vaccine is not effective for as long as the previous formulation and adults typically don't stay current on their shots.

There is little that can be done. This is a major public health issue, but it is not any particular individual's right to butt into another family's business. Epidemiology and public health are not within the clergy's responsibilities or competencies, and, as mentioned before, it seems a number of rising young clergy are opposed to vaccines. It is thoroughly unsatisfying to say, "Well, if you're worried that other people are not vaccinated and you or your family are at risk, I guess you should forego church." This is not really a good option.

We are living in a society, and we should be aware of how our decisions make a difference in the lives of others. Anti-vaccination ideology is foolish, but foolishness isn't a sin. However, it is also selfish because, while there is no general warrant for refusal (hence why it is foolish), it is exposing others who are helpless to risks you are not exposed to. While an unvaccinated 12-year-old Timmy or Tammy is not substantially at risk of death if they catch pertussis, an infant too young to be vaccinated is. The resurgence of pertussis is a direct result of the rise of anti-vaccine ideology and is causing the deaths of infants. Humans are poor at risk management and prevention is undervalued. The only way things will change is if there is some major outbreak which causes massive harm. Indeed, some will think what they are doing is not immoral unless and until there is some direct harm that comes about (not just when it comes to vaccines). This faulty method of thinking is perhaps where pastoral responsibility can come into play.

Another place that may help is to talk about the harms that have already happened elsewhere. Vaccine preventable diseases have surely struck the church before. Parishes where they have should discuss it so that people can realize these are not theoretical consequences, but rather that refusal to vaccinate can cause disease to spread through vulnerable populations. I have heard a couple anecdotes of parishes where, say, pertussis has made the rounds. But one need not even look to current examples: the older generations remember the horrors of polio and other such diseases now all but eradicated by vaccines. Their testimony can be persuasive, and perhaps the church could give them a forum to address it.

In short: vaccinate your children or they may harm others when they come to church.

EDIT:

Honour a physician with the honour due unto him for the uses which ye may have of him: for the Lord hath created him. For of the most High cometh healing, and he shall receive honour of the king. The skill of the physician shall lift up his head: and in the sight of great men he shall be in admiration. The Lord hath created medicines out of the earth; and he that is wise will not abhor them. Was not the water made sweet with wood, that the virtue thereof might be known? And he hath given men skill, that he might be honoured in his marvellous works. With such doth he heal men, and taketh away their pains. Of such doth the apothecary make a confection; and of his works there is no end; and from him is peace over all the earth, My son, in thy sickness be not negligent: but pray unto the Lord, and he will make thee whole. Leave off from sin, and order thine hands aright, and cleanse thy heart from all wickedness. Give a sweet savour, and a memorial of fine flour; and make a fat offering, as not being. Then give place to the physician, for the Lord hath created him: let him not go from thee, for thou hast need of him. There is a time when in their hands there is good success. For they shall also pray unto the Lord, that he would prosper that, which they give for ease and remedy to prolong life. He that sinneth before his Maker, let him fall into the hand of the physician.

Wisdom of Sirach 38:1-15

The new Sheehan Divine Liturgy Book: a brief review

Most English-language church music in the Russian tradition is written in 4 parts and often doesn’t sound good without four parts. However, a common problem in Orthodox parishes is that there are not enough singers to fill all four parts. It’s one thing in a congregation of 200 to find the people, but in a congregation of, say, 20-50 regular attendees, things can get hairy. This volume attempts to fill that gap by providing two-part arrangements of some traditional Russian music (with instructions for how to create a third part where possible for those who can manage one) and usually trying to make the music sound good even with only one of the parts.

The prefatory materials, a foreword by Vlad Morosan discussing some historical aspects of the development of Russian chant and an instructional introduction by the author on how to use the book, are very useful. The first provides some context and understanding for how the music came about. The second not only tells the reader how to use the book, but also helps the reader understand better how music is arranged in general and particularly how 4-part Russian music is arranged as typically performed in a parish setting. This knowledge is helpful for singers even if not singing out of this book.

A lot of the musical content of the book should already be familiar to people who have sung a wide variety of Russian liturgical music, which is a good thing. Much of the melodic material is “standard”, so one does not have to learn dozens and dozens of new melodies. The pieces are also almost universally carried by the melody rather than relying on chordal movement (because how can you do that with two voices?). Some of the options presented can be rather demanding, but there are always feasible options presented.

The litanies, antiphons, troparia/kontakia, Trisagion, and prokeimena are about what one would expect. Several of the pieces are standards with two parts knocked out, so this material is not terribly essential if you already have that music and know how to do it, but it is useful and nice. The real value of the book, to my mind, at least, is the liturgy of the faithful.

The Cherubikon is often a place where it is hard to find an adequate setting for a small choir. The melody is often passed between parts or, if it stays in one part, the harmonization often doesn’t work without a full complement, or sometimes the piece relies on harmonic movement rather than melody. However, the pieces are often working off of standard, memorable chant melodies (eg, Sophronievskaya, Staro-Simonovskaya). This volume takes a number of commonly used chant melodies, at least a couple of which are bound to be familiar, and provides reasonable bass lines for them. To my mind, this alone justifies the book, as it is very common to have a couple voices who know a number of traditional melodies, but the 4-part versions on hand don’t reduce well to melody + bass. This volume, with only a few minutes of practice, will add several Cherubika to our repertoire.

The same is true of the “It is truly meet”. For instance, there is the Bulgarian melody which should be familiar from Yaichkov’s arrangement – the melody is quite memorable, but pulling it out of the piece is nontrivial. The arrangement provided in the book is very singable and memorable.

There is some redundancy in the Anaphora section, since the first two pieces are apparently a one-voice and two-voice version of the same melody (a standard Znamenny melody that others have harmonized before) – one can surely recognize that the bass line can be left off the second one? But it is otherwise very good – there are some standard pieces and some are rather difficult, but one can find something that fits one’s level.

I would strongly recommend the book for any parish that is interested in performing Russian-style music but does not always have all four parts, especially if they only have two parts or even only one part. There are several pieces even choirs that usually have four parts may be interested in if they want some additional variety. A larger and more consistent choir, however, would probably be better off, eg, with the SVS Press Divine Liturgy book and not find much of use beyond a couple pieces that could be interesting for, say, a smaller ensemble to do. I believe the draft edition is sold out, but when the final edition comes out, you should be on the lookout for it.

Other things that disappoint me:

Let's talk about a few other things that disappoint me about religious discourse lately! While some of the things I have in mind here are clerical errors, I want to make clear that I don't intend to be disrespectful of clergy exercising their pastoral ministry.

• Argumentum ad hitlerum. I think it is in singularly poor taste to compare things to Nazis and it is a rather poor rhetorical move, as well, since it will only serve to annoy readers rather than illuminate your point. It also makes you sound weird. This is, of course, a standard internet trick.
  
• I don't have a short name for this, but have you ever noticed that when, say, there's a discussion of women's issues and somebody wants to have anything other than the "easy" "traditionalist" perspective, particularly if they are a woman, they have to very carefully distance themselves from the more "radical" positions, be extremely polite, and play up their "orthodox" bona fides? At least in some quarters. I noticed a recent conversation where people were discussing women's ordination and there was one woman in the conversation who wanted to know more about deaconesses, the opposition to the modern reinstitution of them, and anything else about the issue.
  
  She had to be extremely polite, unfailingly orthodox, and make great pains to clarify that she had no interest in ordaining women to further orders and probably no interest in agitating for the restoration of deaconesses. Meanwhile, people responded at times impolitely, "mansplained" at points, and often treated her discourse as if it were coming from some past life of theirs in the Episcopal Church or from some radical advocate of women's ordination (which she had previously had to indicate she was not). Their behavior, of course, was perfectly acceptable, since they were, after all, On The Right Side. This kind of behavior comes up regularly in discussions of sexual issues, but it also comes up occasionally in a few other contexts, but particularly when it is a woman in the conversation.
  
  A related problem is how abortion gets brought up by men every time a woman tries to discuss just about any issue of sex, gender, sexuality, etc.
  
• An undue preoccupation with the details of private lives of private individuals. At the merest, slimmest hint of scandal over the last few years, certain quarters of the church have called for (or released) an open discussion of the private lives of private individuals. To do what? Prove a point, or ruin a churchman, or silence a voice in whatever nonsensical ecclesiastical controversy is bubbling up. Mind you, the private lives of private individuals (with perhaps named names on public internet fora) were not churchmen, they're simply used to question the exercise of pastoral ministry by certain clerics. Or something. It's okay because they're protecting the Church.
  
• You can always go further right. Any step to the left is death. Essentially, anything up to explicit race realism, overt pick-up artist nonsense, or literal Nazi-ism (sorry about transgressing the first point) is given a free pass. However conservative one's theology, however, one cannot be a feminist or even say things that sound feminist. One cannot discuss "white privilege". Indeed, these will often be criticized using terminology and methods from the above three groups.
  

Rebukes I've received.

HUMBLE YOURSELF.

At various times and diverse places, I have been warned off the path of evil, generally because my views are seen as departing from the narrow way. Here is an incomplete catalog of things people have said to me. These are provided as a warning that, according to some, I may be a dangerous thinker. Caveat lector.

• [E]ver since you drank deep from the feminist well of delusion, interacting with you has become increasingly fruitless. ... You are in the wrong. Your church condemns feminism, and you should probably confess and repent.
  
  NB: I had just told him this was actually good news for Bitcoin
  
• Really, BECOME ORTHODOX BEFORE you presume to write or speak about ORTHODOXY. Your smugness only alludes to your hubris and your lack of Orthodox formation. Your attitude is precisely YOUR PROBLEM and WHY YOU ARE HETERODOX. HUMBLE YOURSELF AND BECOME ORTHODOX ON ORTHODOXY's TERMS.
  
  NB: this was after saying I trusted the Synod about the Met. Jonah affair.
  
• 3). In piety, outlook and discipline, rather than advancing fidelity to and observance of the Holy Fathers, the Holy Canons expressing the Mind of CHRIST, you smugly are content with an outlook in opposition to them, having the audacity to all such fidelity, outlook and discipline even "poisonous." That is most certainly heterodox, Protestant.
  
  Get an Orthodox formation before you write in smugness again.
  
  Same source
  
• Psalm 118:8.Satan is decieving you
  
  NB: This one was some unbalanced Protestant on why global warming was false
  
  
• If that's what you're doing, you should talk to your priest and connect more deeply with Orthodox IRL.
  
  NB: If I recall, this was in response to a comment that noted the Orthodox Church is a conservative institution, which should be uncontroversial
  
• Racism in America is just a marxist social assumption that our culture has adopted and now uses.
  
  Okay, this one isn't really a rebuke to me, but it's friggin' nuts
  
• This article seems to be a perfect example of how sin (Marxism, this is Marxist class theory applied to race) perverts what is good.
  
  A response to my posting this banal article
  
• You are looking far too much towards modern re-interpretations and into modern "scholarship" on the matter and you are not looking enough to the pure and holy church for guidance. Do not look to the sinful, fallen world that is guided by demonic influence. Look towards the church for she is guided by the Holy Spirit.
  
  lollerskates - I believe this one was for saying that homosexual attraction is not, in itself, a sin
  

That's all I have at my fingertips. I'm sure I've been called worse. Alas, some places are either hard to search and some have rules of civility meaning posts get deleted if they are insulting, otherwise I would have more of a list.