My advice is fairly clear. If I were you, I would answer something like "Thanks for that courteous reply. Clearly we disagree about evolution, and how much it can explain about nature, but I don't think those disagreements are as serious as they are often made out to be, and the fact that you signed this note "In Christ" means to me that we are indeed united in the body of Christ, which is what really matters. Peace and blessings."
BTW, that text (or close to it) is something I have written to at least a dozen folks who have sent me similar reactions. It also is in line with the second chapter of my book, Beyond Evolution, and I think it also reflects the wisdom of Francis in his latest book.
Just as an aside. I would consider that first comment to be quite mild. I have a collection of hostile responses from YECs and atheists that make that one sound like a love letter.
Here is one of my favorites from an atheist: "So F*** you, you diluted bastard. You ignorance is only magnified by your beliefs in a feckless god. you and your ilk make me sick. I hate you. Especially for the piece of s*** you are and pretend to be."
I answered by saying that I actually feel quite concentrated and not at all diluted.
And another from a YEC: "You are no man of Christ or of science, you are a liar and a fraud. The truth will reveal itself and the world will know your sins. Justice is coming, you cannot hide. Depart from me, doer of evil, child of Satan, lover of sin. I DO NOT KNOW YOU."
My gut says just drop it. But my mind says reply. By the hand of Providence, there’s the start of a conversation here. In replying, I think I’d lean on Bob’s “in Christ” closing. I’d seek common ground in your shared adoration of God, and emphasize how, for you, recognizing the realities of evolutionary creation magnifies rather than detracts from God’s glory. Where there might be a closed-mindedness about the science, you might find an open-heartedness to worship.
I appreciate your quest to converse rather than to win. Maybe ask what he likes about the book so far and what compelled him to continue reading? Maybe take a tangential path and ask what he thinks about science education in schools today? Or, go direct and ask what drive him to write to you and what he hopes to gain? On second thought, probably avoid that last one.
Your initial gentle reply is commendable. I might have struggled against the temptation to invoke my PhD in chemical thermodynamics and call it embarrassing for a PhD in physical chemistry to think the second law of thermodynamics worked as an anti-evolution argument.
If you decide on further discussion, a topic could be why he seems to feel that evolution threatens the faith. Does he think it contradicts the Bible? Then the issue would seem to be asking the Bible questions it isn’t trying to answer, forcing it to be a science text. Is it the common claim that evolution has “no room for God”? He seems to be OK (given the RTB reference) with God working through natural processes to create stars. If such mediated creation is OK for stars, why not for starfish?
Maybe I should be thankful for the obscurity of my recent self-published book on science and faith; I think hostile mail would stress me out.
I think what you say is less important than your attitude or posture, and you've already achieved that. You aren't responding with anger or annoyance, you're forgiving him his minor errors and even major understandings, you're not posing as "the expert with the answers" and demanding he submit or earn your contempt, you're listening and being honest. In these situations, that's the best we can do. Keeping the conversation open with an expression of gratitude for his interest, thanking him for his kindness, acknowledging the real difficulties he might have put his finger on, maybe recounting some point in your life about some issue he's raised where where you felt as he did, if there is such a thing--without implying you've moved on to a space of superiority, stuff like that, can do wonders to build some trust and fellow-feeling. "As much as it in you lies ..." and all that.
Of course I, audaciously, think that I might have something to add, but may not.
I have defined myself once as a thermodynamicist, but that was because I accepted thermodynamics as more fundamental than most people do, and my advisor had been trained in London. But we can pretend that I am a bit still in that camp. There is one God and all of our drawing lines between disciplines really makes no sense.
I also get uneasy when anyone tries to expound on the Second Law (of thermodynamics). I reread (most of) Boltzmann's papers on the emerging statistical mechanics the end of the 19th century in order to make certain of the details for my book " The Quantum Theory - Origins and Ideas."
But I did not go to the Bible. As Mennonites we get very concerned about the consistency of ideas. And in the Reformation we insisted on going back to those first ideas as recorded in first century scripture. Mennonites are disguised intellectuals. As a PhD candidate in physics I found John W. Miller to be a courageous intellectual
It is impossible to understand original thought in terms that will completely satisfy us as whatever we think we are (scientists? theologians? mystics? ...) I completely accept monotheism. Maybe that is your starting point If you truly accept monotheism you are on board with a rather complete statement of the Second Law. I am astonished by the fact that the Hamilton-Jacobi Equations are at the fundamental basis of all we have in dynamics and quantum mechanics.
I think I would respond with further gentle questions, asking him about how he’s come to his position on one or two of the statements he’s made, and see if that leads him to ask some questions in response?
One could also point out (perhaps at the end) that there are plenty “hard scientists” who accept evolutionary creation (I wonder if particle physicist Sir John Polkinghorne is “hard” enough for him?), but maybe it would be more fruitful to ask him about where his distinction between “hard” and “soft” sciences comes from and why he thinks “soft” science produces less reliable information? I.e. what does he believe about epistemology and why?
In any case, I’d continue trying to ask a few questions and understanding his story some more and seeing if that leads to a curiosity in him to understand your story more. I absolutely agree that trying to cross the divide is wiser than straight-up arguing.
I honestly don't know how to respond to this lol. I think your initial to invite him to share his story was a good idea. I think that softened his tone a bit? The emails with no punctuations almost sounded like it was transcribed from audio? But the random upper cases probably meant he actually typed it.
Keep up the great work Jim. I have not received any hate mail but I suspect maybe one day I will if I continue down this path I am taking.
As someone who's unsure about evolution my heart is sad for you young earthers should be the be the most Christlike Christians out there after all love your neighbour is in the same bible and most of them are lovely people
My advice is fairly clear. If I were you, I would answer something like "Thanks for that courteous reply. Clearly we disagree about evolution, and how much it can explain about nature, but I don't think those disagreements are as serious as they are often made out to be, and the fact that you signed this note "In Christ" means to me that we are indeed united in the body of Christ, which is what really matters. Peace and blessings."
BTW, that text (or close to it) is something I have written to at least a dozen folks who have sent me similar reactions. It also is in line with the second chapter of my book, Beyond Evolution, and I think it also reflects the wisdom of Francis in his latest book.
Just as an aside. I would consider that first comment to be quite mild. I have a collection of hostile responses from YECs and atheists that make that one sound like a love letter.
Here is one of my favorites from an atheist: "So F*** you, you diluted bastard. You ignorance is only magnified by your beliefs in a feckless god. you and your ilk make me sick. I hate you. Especially for the piece of s*** you are and pretend to be."
I answered by saying that I actually feel quite concentrated and not at all diluted.
And another from a YEC: "You are no man of Christ or of science, you are a liar and a fraud. The truth will reveal itself and the world will know your sins. Justice is coming, you cannot hide. Depart from me, doer of evil, child of Satan, lover of sin. I DO NOT KNOW YOU."
I have hundreds of these. Fun, right?
My gut says just drop it. But my mind says reply. By the hand of Providence, there’s the start of a conversation here. In replying, I think I’d lean on Bob’s “in Christ” closing. I’d seek common ground in your shared adoration of God, and emphasize how, for you, recognizing the realities of evolutionary creation magnifies rather than detracts from God’s glory. Where there might be a closed-mindedness about the science, you might find an open-heartedness to worship.
I appreciate your quest to converse rather than to win. Maybe ask what he likes about the book so far and what compelled him to continue reading? Maybe take a tangential path and ask what he thinks about science education in schools today? Or, go direct and ask what drive him to write to you and what he hopes to gain? On second thought, probably avoid that last one.
Your initial gentle reply is commendable. I might have struggled against the temptation to invoke my PhD in chemical thermodynamics and call it embarrassing for a PhD in physical chemistry to think the second law of thermodynamics worked as an anti-evolution argument.
If you decide on further discussion, a topic could be why he seems to feel that evolution threatens the faith. Does he think it contradicts the Bible? Then the issue would seem to be asking the Bible questions it isn’t trying to answer, forcing it to be a science text. Is it the common claim that evolution has “no room for God”? He seems to be OK (given the RTB reference) with God working through natural processes to create stars. If such mediated creation is OK for stars, why not for starfish?
Maybe I should be thankful for the obscurity of my recent self-published book on science and faith; I think hostile mail would stress me out.
I think what you say is less important than your attitude or posture, and you've already achieved that. You aren't responding with anger or annoyance, you're forgiving him his minor errors and even major understandings, you're not posing as "the expert with the answers" and demanding he submit or earn your contempt, you're listening and being honest. In these situations, that's the best we can do. Keeping the conversation open with an expression of gratitude for his interest, thanking him for his kindness, acknowledging the real difficulties he might have put his finger on, maybe recounting some point in your life about some issue he's raised where where you felt as he did, if there is such a thing--without implying you've moved on to a space of superiority, stuff like that, can do wonders to build some trust and fellow-feeling. "As much as it in you lies ..." and all that.
Also, I assumed your title was a nod to Arthur Lovejoy's The Great Chain of Being, but, apparently not?
Lovejoy talked about hate mail?? I read it... but 30 years ago.
Sorry, "major misunderstandings" is what I intended.
Thanks for including me, Jim.
Of course I, audaciously, think that I might have something to add, but may not.
I have defined myself once as a thermodynamicist, but that was because I accepted thermodynamics as more fundamental than most people do, and my advisor had been trained in London. But we can pretend that I am a bit still in that camp. There is one God and all of our drawing lines between disciplines really makes no sense.
I also get uneasy when anyone tries to expound on the Second Law (of thermodynamics). I reread (most of) Boltzmann's papers on the emerging statistical mechanics the end of the 19th century in order to make certain of the details for my book " The Quantum Theory - Origins and Ideas."
But I did not go to the Bible. As Mennonites we get very concerned about the consistency of ideas. And in the Reformation we insisted on going back to those first ideas as recorded in first century scripture. Mennonites are disguised intellectuals. As a PhD candidate in physics I found John W. Miller to be a courageous intellectual
It is impossible to understand original thought in terms that will completely satisfy us as whatever we think we are (scientists? theologians? mystics? ...) I completely accept monotheism. Maybe that is your starting point If you truly accept monotheism you are on board with a rather complete statement of the Second Law. I am astonished by the fact that the Hamilton-Jacobi Equations are at the fundamental basis of all we have in dynamics and quantum mechanics.
But I have little to say.
I think I would respond with further gentle questions, asking him about how he’s come to his position on one or two of the statements he’s made, and see if that leads him to ask some questions in response?
One could also point out (perhaps at the end) that there are plenty “hard scientists” who accept evolutionary creation (I wonder if particle physicist Sir John Polkinghorne is “hard” enough for him?), but maybe it would be more fruitful to ask him about where his distinction between “hard” and “soft” sciences comes from and why he thinks “soft” science produces less reliable information? I.e. what does he believe about epistemology and why?
In any case, I’d continue trying to ask a few questions and understanding his story some more and seeing if that leads to a curiosity in him to understand your story more. I absolutely agree that trying to cross the divide is wiser than straight-up arguing.
I honestly don't know how to respond to this lol. I think your initial to invite him to share his story was a good idea. I think that softened his tone a bit? The emails with no punctuations almost sounded like it was transcribed from audio? But the random upper cases probably meant he actually typed it.
Keep up the great work Jim. I have not received any hate mail but I suspect maybe one day I will if I continue down this path I am taking.
Let me at ‘em, I’m an expert! I’d probably give it one more gracious reply and then be done with the convo. Maybe direct him to the Forum 🤣
As someone who's unsure about evolution my heart is sad for you young earthers should be the be the most Christlike Christians out there after all love your neighbour is in the same bible and most of them are lovely people