Richard Feynman Lectures Online

Bill Gates has used some of his foundation money to make some interesting science lectures available online for free.

The lectures that Richard Feynman gave at Cornell University in 1964 were found by Gates on aging movie reels in a library basement years ago. He has spent a lot of time and energy finding who owned the rights to the films and paying for those rights. The fruit of Gates' efforts are now available for everyone's benefit.

Feynman worked on the Manhattan Project during World War 2 and later became a Nobel laureate. He was known not only for his numerous scientific discoveries, but also his ability to teach students in interesting and novel ways.

The lecture series focuses on the physical laws, their characteristics, and how the laws relate together. The first lecture begins with gravity and he progresses through to quantum mechanics and possible new laws that have not yet been discovered. While the content ranges from simple to complex, he presents the material in a very accessible and understandable manner. He brings a unique perspective and love of science that I wish had been present in more of my science classes during my school years.

Kudos to Mr. Gates for a pursuing this worthwhile project.

Technical note: The videos are presented using Microsoft's new Silverlight video application, which currently does not work on the Google Chrome browser. (Arrrgghh!) You'll have to use either Internet Explorer or Firefox, and download the Silverlight plug-in.

Lakeland and Lying

A lot of uproar surrounding the Lakeland revival fiasco has focused on Todd Bentley's divorce and rapid remarriage. However, I'm surprised that his lying has garnered less attention. As far as I know, it has not been addressed by Rick Joyner at all. (Rick is leading the so-called restoration process for Todd.)

A Christian leader who cannot be consistently honest in his words surely does not deserve to be followed or trusted. As Jesus said, "Let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No.' (Matt. 5:37)

A couple example where I have found Todd Bentley was dishonest in his statements.

1) Overstating the Number of Healings

While I am convinced that God can heal people miraculously, it seems Todd overstated the number of healings that actually took place. Some people refuse to accept that anyone was healed at Lakeland, but I find that a difficult position to defend as one would have to follow up with every single person who claimed to have been healed. Proving an apparent healing did not occur miraculously as a result of prayer is just as difficult as proving that one did. Healing can be a subjective measure ("I feel less pain than before"), but even for healings that can be clinically confirmed ("The tumour has shrunk in size by 50%") it is still virtually impossible to determine what caused the healing. Was it last week's chemotherapy or this week's prayer that did it?

When ABC Nightline did their investigative report on Lakeland on July 9, 2008 (see Part 1, Part 2), they asked for contact information for just 3 people who claimed to be healed. Todd promised to do so, but could not. ABC could not confirm a single case of verifiable miraculous healing. Sometimes getting confirmation can be difficult because people (or their doctors) do not want to be thrown into the public eye, but surely 3 out of the alleged thousands of healed people would have been willing to come forward.

The most remarkable claims that Todd made was regarding resurrections -- dead people who were miraculously being raised to life. The counts kept increasing -- then decreasing -- then increasing. One supposed resurrection that Charisma magazine (which was largely supportive of the revival) mentioned in their article on May 22, 2008 was about a brain dead girl who came to life on the operating table just before having her organs harvested. The article concludes with the sentence, "The hospital denied the report." Why publicize it as a resurrection when there is clear evidence from the hospital contradicting that claim? Apparently a few days later, Todd publicly stated that the little girl had "died again" although if no resurrection ever took place, it would appear she had in fact only died once.

Robert Ricciardelli, a (now former) member of Peter Wagner's apostolic network and a contributor to Charisma magazine, began investigating these claims of healing as one who supported the revival. He started raising warning flags in July 2008. Andrew Strom has collected some of Robert's internet postings, a couple of which are presented below:

"Charisma reporters and a few others like myself have tried to get these [healing claims] verified and cannot... We actually had offered to help, because any news of a resurrection in my opinion is world news if it can be validated. But then when the totals continued to mount which led to hype and embellishment, they began to ask us to stop asking questions."

"We have investigated the 20 plus 'raised from the dead' claims as we want to report them to the media, and they cannot be verified, but were only called in, or sent in from an email. This is not responsible reporting, and leaves many questions, which also adds to the claims of hype and embellishment."

One email report of a resurrection that Todd read on live TV was admitted to be false by its author as an attempt to test the screening process for healing claims. It obviously proved to be a very good test of a very poor screening process! To my knowledge, the mistaken resurrection claim was never retracted by Todd.

2) Lying About When He Got His Tatoos

Todd's tatoos obviously attract a lot of attention to him, and I suspect that's why Todd has them in the first place. While I don't find tatoos attractive, I don't have a particular problem with them per se. What I do find disturbing is Todd's lies about when he got them.

In an article published by The Charlotte Observer, we get one version of the story: "He [Todd Bentley] said most of his tatoos are from his pre-Christian days, but he makes no apologies for them."

However, it is clear from photos taken only a few years ago (one example here) that there were no tatoos visible on his neck. Further, most of his tatoos have overt Christian themes. Why would a non-Christian teenager get tatoos like that?

On May 8, 2008, Todd wore a T-shirt on stage with the words, "Jesus Gave Me My Tatoos."

Lastly, Rick Joyner admitted that Todd had an unhealthy obsession with tatoos over the past few years.

It is clear that Todd got most of his tatoos recently but lied about it to the newspaper reporter.

There are other examples of Todd Bentley's mistruths, but they aren't necessary to make the point.

To my knowledge, Todd Bentley never corrected any of these lies nor repented of his lying, neither during the revival nor since he has begun his restoration process. Which begs the question: Why is an unrepentant liar being restored to Christian leadership?

Lakeland and Restoration, Part 3

In Part Two, I discussed the pros and cons of restoring a fallen Christian leader to their ministry. In this final post, I would like to return to the Lakeland situation and evaluate what has been happening with Todd Bentley's restoration. Regardless of whether you believe fallen leaders can be restored or not, there are some particular problems with this situation that need to be highlighted.

A Few Lessons from Todd Bentley's Restoration Process

1. Restoration Must Begin With Complete Removal From Ministry

Even though Todd immediately stopped leading his revival meetings in Florida, two things happened right after he moved to Rick Joyner's church to begin his restoration process: a) donations were invited for Todd's support; and b) it was announced a new charity would be set up for his new ministry.

Rick Joyner has since denied this implied that the outcome of this process was guaranteed. He said people were asking to donate money, and he was simply accomodating their request. As for setting up a charity at the beginning of this process, I don't believe Rick ever commented on that.

Todd now has an office at Rick's church and apparently is being supported by donations, even though he is doing no ministry work.

The restoration of a fallen leader must begin with a complete removal from church ministry. He must get a job and support his family with work outside of the church. There is no need for the church to support him (or private donors) because he is not doing any ministry in the church. Why should he be paid for not working in the church? Surely this is poor stewardship of church funds.

Further, there is no need for a new charity until the end of the restoration process because it is not known if it will be needed. By creating the new charity at the beginning, Rick effectively admitted the outcome of the process is guaranteed. Why go through the process then?

2. Restoration Does Not Begin When The Fallen Leader Decides It Should

Todd's apparent disappearance for approximately 8 months after his pending divorce became public is a big part of the problem. Where were his overseers during this time? Why was he allowed to quickly finalize his divorce and remarry before his restoration process began?

Rick Joyner has publicly said he should bear some of the blame for Todd's rapid remarriage, apparently by giving Todd some vague advice that was misinterpreted. If that's so, then Rick should be disqualified from leading Todd's restoration process. It was a failure in oversight over Todd that made this big problem even worse, and further eroded trust with the church.

Oversight should have happened immediately after Todd's divorce plans became public by trying to restore Todd's first marriage. It may not have prevented the divorce, but it was the logical first step.

By permitting Todd to determine when his restoration process began (i.e. after he moved to Rick Joyner's church), he got to lock in his divorce and his new marriage. Repentance has no consequences now. Nothing can be undone. Which leads to my final point ...

3. Repentance Is Not Just Saying "Sorry"

By locking in his divorce and remarriage, Todd gets to avoid undoing his sin. Repentance involves admitting one's sin, changing direction, and cleaning up the mess. Todd has confessed his errors, but how has he changed his direction? How has he cleaned up his mess?

Todd admitted his inappropriate "emotional" relationship with another woman, and dealt with it by divorcing his wife and marrying his new girlfriend. That doesn't sound like a change of direction to me. It sounds more like keeping the same direction and stepping on the gas.

Hypothetical story: A pastor confessed of defrauding his church of a huge amount of money, stepped down from his leadership role in the church, and disappeared for 8 months. Then he reappears again, says the money has now been spent and he's broke, but he's ready to repent. He's truly sorry, but it's no longer possible to return the stolen money because it's gone. Too bad, but that's just the way it is. Would you consider that repentance? Sounds more like opportunism. Let's finish enjoying the sin, and then we can enjoy the forgiveness.

Repentance is the fruit of a change of heart. Words can be empty; actions speak louder than words.

Todd Bentley and Rick Joyner have been shouting apologies, but Todd's actions have drowned out his words.

Lakeland and Restoration, Part 2

I want to continue on the topic of restoring a Christian leader to their ministry, as Rick Joyner is doing with Todd Bentley. (See Part 1 here.)

I closed the last post with the point that not everything gets restored after someone sins. The question for this post is:

Should a Christian leader's ministry be restored after moral failure?

I think there are only two possible answers to that question: Never, or Sometimes.

I don't think many would argue that a leader should always be restored, because at minimum it requires repentance, and not everyone repents. So it boils down to a question of restoration to church leadership being possible or impossible.

There is also an assumption of the seriousness of the sin. Obviously all Christian leaders sin to some degree, because no one leads a sinless life. What we are talking about is some kind of serious, moral failure that is blatantly inappropriate for a Christian leader.

Restoration: Never

One position is that a Christian leader is permanently disqualified from church leadership after falling into gross sin. John MacArthur is one prominent person in this camp. His argument is based on the following points:

• Disqualification in the character requirements of church leaders is permanent.
  For instance, John argues that one can never be "above reproach" (1 Tim. 3:2) after shattering one's reputation with sin. Therefore, one can never meet the qualifications to be a church leader again.
• Restoration to fellowship, not leadership.
  Forgiveness is offered for the sinner's return to fellowship with the church, but not for return to leadership in the church. Galatians 6:1 is not talking about restoring a person to leadership, but rather relationship. We need to help, encourage, exhort, support, and minister to the fallen leader, but we do not put them back in charge.
• Church health takes priority over the leader's expectations.
  By putting a fallen leader back in a position of leadership, John argues the reputation of the church is damaged. Further, the message is sent that sin is not serious and there are no long-term consequences from it. By preventing a fallen leader from returning to their former position, it shows both the world and the church that sin is serious and that it holds its leaders to a higher standard than the world does.

Restoration: Sometimes

Another position is that a Christian leader can be restored to public ministry, providing certain conditions are met. Rick Joyner obviously holds this position and feels that it applies to Todd Bentley. Leadership Journal featured a story in 2006 about a pastor who had an extramarital encounter and was eventually restored to a pastoral role in a different church. The frequent arugments for this position include:

• Christians must offer grace and forgiveness to everyone who sins, including leaders.
  Galatians 6:1 applies to everyone, including restoration of fallen leaders to their former roles once they have repented and addresssed their sin. If a leader disqualifies himself from leadership, he can requalify himself given sufficient time. Character failures can be mended.
• Restoring fallen leaders gives hope to others who have sinned.
  When a leader repents and is restored to leadership, it gives hope to others inside and outside the church who are in similar circumstances.
• Fallen leaders who are restored can relate well to others who have sinned.
  Because of their experience with the sin and their repentance, they can relate to others in serious sin and can provide practical guidance during their restoration process.

So Which Position Is Correct?

Unfortunately the New Testament does not include a story of a church leader who sinned, repented, and was either restored to leadership or prohibited from being restored to leadership. That would've made things much easier to discern.

I believe both of the above arguments have some degree of Biblical basis, but neither side can point to a clear passage or verse to justify their position entirely. There seems to be strengths and weaknesses in both camps.

Interestingly, I think both sides can cause harm to the church. There are instances where a fallen leader was restored to his position, bringing scorn on the church from the outside world and division inside the church between those who trust the leader and those who do not. There are also instances where a fallen leader is not given the option of returning to leadership, but is neither offered any forgiveness or fellowship in the church. Their options are to hide their history and find a different, unsuspecting church, or to give up on church altogether.

This is one key weakness of the "never restore" position: while in theory a fallen leader can be offered fellowship without leadership, in practice I think it seldom happens. People used to relating to a person as their leader have trouble relating to them as just another follower, just as the former leader must get used to relating to his former followers as peers. Further, if the church was severely wounded by the leader's sin, it takes a long time before fellowship can be freely offered again. Deep wounds are never healed quickly. Restoration to fellowship but not leadership seems to be a theoretical position more than a practical one.

On the other hand, arguing a fallen leader can relate to sinners better because of their sin turns Scripture on its head. If sin makes such a great qualification for a pastor, then seminaries should have adultery practicums, or fraud courses. Such a claim is ridiculous, as it disqualifies Jesus from leading his church. Hebrews 2:18 says that "Because he himself [Jesus] suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted." Sin is not required to relate well with sinners, just the temptation to sin. And everyone is well-qualified in the area of temptation.

It just shows how messy things get when leaders sin. The consequences are significant and complex, and the possible solutions to the problem are equally complex.

So how do we sort through the complexity? More to come in the next (and final) section.

Lakeland and Restoration, Part 1

When Todd Bentley announced he was seeking a divorce from his wife last summer, it was disappointing. It was yet another Christian leader in the spotlight who could not keep his personal life together. But when news came out shortly after that he had already remarried, and that the woman he married had earlier lived in his home as a full-time homemaker, things were looking less like a simple case of marriage problems and more like a long-term scheme to get a different wife.

At least that's what it looked like. Todd has denied that there was any inappropriate relationship before his divorce, but appearances speak louder than words, and he certainly was not exercising any wisdom throughout this entire whirlwind of events. If the public is guilty of jumping to wrong conclusions, then Todd is certainly guilty of providing them with a trampoline.

What's done is done. The divorce is final, and the second marriage is final. Neither of those things can be wished away. So what about Todd's future in the church?

The Restoration Process

Enter Rick Joyner. On March 9, he announced on his website that he would be leading a process along with two other pastors to restore Todd fully to his ministry. Not just restoring Todd to a place where he could be a Godly husband and father, or a contributing member of a church, but to actually return to the kind of public ministry he had before his divorce. Rick's basis for this action is Galatians 6:1, which says "If a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted."

While Rick stated that this process was just beginning and the timeline for Todd's restoration was not known, the original announcement also stated that Todd was forming a new U.S. charity (the Canadian charity he founded had severed ties with him) and that people could start sending money for his support immediately. It seemed that the question of Todd's restoration to ministry was already decided, and that the only thing left to work out was when it would become official.

Questions About Restoring A Christian Leader

All of this lead me to ask a number of questions about what Biblical restoration really means in a situation like Todd Bentley's.

1) What Does Gal. 6:1 Mean?

Rick Joyner justifies this restoration process for Todd based on Gal. 6:1. The verse is fairly clear: a person who commits a sin of any kind should be helped by those who are spiritual to be restored. The Greek word translated "restore" is a medical term, referring to the setting of a broken bone so it can heal.

Rick presumes "restore" includes the return to one's original leadership position or ministry in the church. While it could include that, it is not the common understanding among Bible commentators. The primary restoration is understood to be one of restoring the person to a relationship with God through repentance of their sin, and then to restore their relationship to the church.

The context of Gal. 6 is not church leadership. While it certainly could include church leaders who sin, it should not be the only passage we base our decisions on when dealing with fallen leaders.

2) What Other Passages Apply?

We are not to put just anyone in leadership in the church. 1 Timothy and Titus have some clear prerequisites for those who aspire to carry church authority. There is no guarantee that once a person is put in leadership, they should always be in leadership. Just as a person can disqualify himself for church leadership before being appointed, he can also disqualify himself after being appointed. Gal. 6:1 does not supercede these character requirements for leadership.

For example, 1 Timothy 3:4 gives the following requirement for a church elder: "He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect."

If a leader leaves and divorces his wife, moves away from his children (in Todd's case, thousands of kms away), and remarries, it's very difficult to argue that he is managing his family well. It's hard to teach your children to obey you when you are absent from the home.

Therefore, Todd should be disqualified from church leadership on this criteria alone. Some would argue he could qualify himself again in the long-term after carefully building a new marriage and family, while others would consider this a permanent disqualification. I don't think Scripture is clear on this detail, so pick your side.

3) Committees Cannot Restore the Trust of a Church

Somehow in recent years, an assumption has crept in among some Christian groups that fallen leaders can be restored to their positions or ministries after a committee announces that they are ready. I'm not sure why this is, as it is not a Biblical concept from what I can see.

While a process led by a small group of leaders may be fruitful in bringing about repentance and progress with the leader who has sinned, it is not how trust is restored with the church. Trust takes a long time to build, and once it has been squandered, an even longer time to rebuild. Committees cannot change that fact. Trust must be earned in relationship over the long term. There is no quick road to restoring trust.

We certainly wouldn't apply this solution to other situations in the church. No one would ever suggest that a spouse who has been unfaithful should meet with a pastoral committee for a period of months or years, and when the committee decides the time is right, the wronged spouse should accept the person back into the marriage and return to life as it was before the sin occurred. That is a complex, long-term, personal process that does not have a clear outcome or timeline. Sometimes the marriage can be fully restored, and sometimes it cannot, but it's never done using a committee of marriage experts.

The church functions as a network of relationships, and broken relationships cannot be restored by committee.

Conclusions

Unfortunately, not everything gets restored after a person sins. Stolen money cannot always be returned. (Bernie Madoff recently reminded the investment community of that.) Murder victims are not brought back to life. Divorces are seldom undone. Abused children carry emotional scars for life.

To view Galatians 6:1 through the lense that everything a Christian leader had before they sinned should be restored is naive at best.

Todd's marriage will not be restored, no matter what happens with his ministry. Todd's parental relationship with his children will now be distant and occasional, no matter what progress he makes with his relationship with God. Why shouldn't his ministry and church responsibilities also be permanently affected by his sin?

More on this in the next post.

Lakeland and Greasy Grace

Earlier this month, the editor of Charisma magazine J. Lee Grady published an article regarding the Lakeland saga titled The Tragic Scandal of Greasy Grace.  In it, he is critical of the quick remarriage of Todd Bentley so soon after his divorce, and especially the quick move to begin restoring Todd to ministry.

The term "greasy grace" is not new, but it was used by Peter Wagner in his first letter following the public announcement of Todd's separation from his wife.  Peter was one of the apostolic leaders who publicly laid hands on Todd in late June.  In that letter, Peter commends the apostolic leaders who were stepping in and removing Todd from his ministry leadership:

I am  delighted that they are not buying into typical charismatic soft morality, also called “greasy grace” or “don’t touch God’s anointed” or “mercy must triumph over judgment,” phrases that have been used on other similar occasions as convenient religious cop-out excuses. They’re proceeding in love, but it is tough love!

I don't know this, but Lee's title may be an intentional reference to Peter Wagner's use of that term, and thereby an implicit criticism that what is happening with Todd is exactly what Peter said was not happening.

What is Greasy Grace?

An understanding of greasy grace has to start with an understanding of grace.  

Grace is getting something good that you don't deserve.  It is unmerited favour.  In the context of Christianity, it is God allowing Jesus' death to be counted as punishment for our sins.  God's grace flows as a result of his love for us.

Grace is risky.  It means undeserving people get good things.  Most of us would prefer that good people get good consequences, and bad people get bad consequences.  That is justice.  God's grace says Jesus can take my bad consequences, and I can receive Jesus' good consequences instead.  Justice is served overall, but it wasn't justice for Jesus to be punished when he didn't sin, nor is it justice that I don't get punished for my own sin.  Grace is joining God's love with His necessity for justice.

When Christians confront someone who has sinned, we have the choice of being gracious like God has been gracious to us, or we can dispense justice.  Of all people, Christians should be the most gracious when it comes to dealing with sinners, but that's not always the case.  Throughout history Christians have been very effective and doling out punishments and dire consequences to fellow Christians who are caught trespassing in some way.

Greasy grace therefore is a negative term used by folks who feel someone has inappropriately slipped out of the consequences of their sinful deeds in the name of grace, or has benefited inappropriately from their sin.  Like Peter Wagner implies, greasy grace is the opposite of "tough love."  

Lee Grady describes what he means by this term:

Many Christians today have rejected biblical discipline and adopted a sweet, spineless love that cannot correct. Our grace is greasy. No matter what an offending brother does, we stroke him and pet him and nurse his wounds while we ignore the people he wounded. No matter how heinous his sin, we offer comforting platitudes because, after all, who are we to judge?

Therefore, Lee is suggesting that greasy grace involves forgiving and not disciplining the offender, while ignoring the pain of the victims of his sin.

Observation #1:  All Grace is Greasy

The more I think about grace, the more I am faced with this question:  Isn't all grace greasy?  Doesn't grace by definition mean that all Christians are getting away like bandits?  

Yes!  If we are receiving good things that we don't deserve, we are experiencing grace.  That ridiculous display of God's grace for us by sending Jesus is what is supposed to motivate us to love God in return.  Grace is really shocking when you think about it, especially when you start to dispense it to others.

It's either greasy grace or sticky justice.  I don't believe there can be such a thing as "sticky grace."

Observation #2:  Grace Does Not Ignore The Victims

Grace does not deny that people have been hurt by that sin, nor does it ignore them.  

Sometimes people think that if you forgive someone, you have to pretend the sin did not occur.  If you forgive them, you are saying there never really was any harm.  That is completely untrue.  Forgiveness simply means I give up my desire to seek revenge or punishment for that person.

We cannot be ungracious to people who have been wounded by a person's sin.  We must care for and stand with them as they attempt to process their pain and come to a place where they can offer forgiveness as well.  We must protect them if a risk exists of being wounded in the same way by the same person, such as in an abusive relationship.

Failure to support the victims of sin is not due to grace being offered to the sinner; it is just a failure to support the victims.  That failure is wrong, but it is a separate issue from how we deal with the sinner.  

However, we cannot become so consumed with a desire to restore a sinful leader that we overlook the victims.

Observation #3:  Grace Does Not Preclude Correction

Being gracious with a sinner means we choose to forgive and not punish them for the sake of punishing, but that does not mean we cannot bring discipline and correction to them.

In fact, Jesus gave us each the responsibility to make disciples (Matt. 28:19).  You cannot make a disciple (literally a "disciplined one") without bringing discipline.  So how could a Christian leader be restored without bringing discipline and correction?

Grace means we will correct a sinner in love; we will stand with them and not abandon them; we will not condemn them; we will help them face and deal with the consequences of their sin; we will help them see their error and learn to avoid it; we will make an environment where it is possible for them to be restored.

Final Thoughts

All of these things are really easy to write about in a blog.  They are much harder to live out, especially when you have been wounded by the sin.  Situations are complicated and God's wisdom is needed to know how to deal with the people involved.  But as Christians, we have no choice but to be gracious with sinners.  We have been the biggest recipients of God's grace, and we must dispense grace to others.

The Lakeland Outpouring: Pouring Out Some Thoughts

While I haven't particularly followed the so-called "Lakeland Outpouring" last year, recent developments have got me thinking about a number of related issues.

By way of background, in the spring of 2008, Ignited Church in Lakeland, Florida held some revival meetings led by Canadian Todd Bentley.   Supernatural healings started taking place, and people started coming from far and wide to experience it.  Some people went back home and experienced healings in their home churches.  However, Todd Bentley had a history of questionable theology and uncomfortable ministry practices, and when the Lakeland events were broadcast on GodTV, those issues suddenly became visible to many.  Some people began raising their concerns.

I found it fascinating how Christian bloggers quickly became polarized around Lakeland, either strongly supporting it as an evident move of God, or strongly opposed to the theological error and awkward practices being played out on stage.

In the summer, it was announced that Todd and his wife were separating and that Todd was no longer leading the Lakeland meetings.  The Outpouring quickly fizzled, and many bloggers were more than willing to add their "I told you so" to the chorus of commentators.

In March 2009, more details emerged.  Todd had divorced his wife and married the woman with whom he had been having an "inappropriate relationship" when his separation was announced last summer.  Further, he is beginning a "restoration process" led by Rick Joyner.  He is setting up a new charity in the U.S. (he was asked to step down from the Canadian charity he started 10 years ago) and Rick Joyner has begun putting out weekly update videos on Todd's progress.

Truth is stranger than fiction, and it would've been hard to script something fictional with as many plot twists, scandals, and surprises.  While I don't feel like adding my voice to the throngs who are taking sides in this battle, I do want to use it as an opportunity to learn from the mistakes of both the players and some commentators in this sad real-life story.  My next few blogs will try to tackle a few of these lessons.

Science vs Opinion

I read an interesting column today in The Globe and Mail by Andre Picard, entitled The Internet Has Changed The Nature Of Scientific Debate.

His main point is how responses to his columns about healthcare have changed over the years, particularly that "there no longer seems to be much place for civilized disagreement, honest scientific-based dissension, on differing analyses of agreed-upon facts."

Offering an argument based on facts has been replaced with personal attacks and a head-count of how many people agree on a given point. As Andre quotes Anatole France, "If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

There is a similar phenomenon happening with the global warming debate. It's not whether there are scientific facts that show greenhouse gases created by humans are the problem; it's about how many experts think that conclusion is likely correct. Scientific truth is now determined by a democratic vote among certain approved experts. If you disagree with the populist view, then you likely aren't qualified to vote.

Conspiracy theories and their adherents are growing substantially in our day. Lately I've been curious why that is. Andre suggests a lack of science literacy among the population, and I think he is right. If you have no capacity to evaluate statements based on objective evidence, you simply get to choose which expert you want to agree with. And it's always easiest to be on the side of the expert who already has the largest following.

But I think there is something more fundamental at work here than simply declining science education. I believe we are losing the desire to seek out truth itself. After all, that objective is at the very heart of the scientific method. There is truth and there is error, and the scientific method says both can be determined by an objective investigation of the facts.

Defining your own truth in your own world is much simpler than facing absolute truth. It allows you to form reality in your own image. And why wouldn't folks choose to have that kind of power?