Van Gogh's Roses: a parable

[shernren]

The hailstorm that hit Canberra two days ago caused all lectures and classes in ANU to be canceled until Monday for storm damage repairs. So I went up to Sydney for the weekend to meet some friends there. I had many conversations, but one remained in my head. It was one I had over lunch with a friend, slightly older, who is involved in scholarship related to Expressionist art of the 20th century.

We were talking about her recent work, and I can't remember much of what she said, being a science student, but the phrase "Van Gogh's roses" made me sit up with a start. I'm no art scholar but I know that the famous flowers Van Gogh painted were -

"Sunflowers, right? Surely you mean Gogh's sunflowers, not roses?"

"I did mean 'roses'. It's a long story, and one related much more to arts than to whatever you do in science. Are you sure you want to hear it?"

"Can you summarize it?"

"I can't, but I'll try. Basically, there is a small but increasing - and mistaken, in my opinion - body of art scholars who believe that those yellow flowers Van Gogh painted were actually roses, not sunflowers."

"You're right, that summary makes no sense! I want to hear the full story."

She slowly set her cup of coffee down on the table, and I knew that this was going to be a long story.

"We've had a problematic manuscript with us for some time now. It's one of Gogh's, dating back to early 1888, which contains rough sketches identifiable as drafts for Sunflowers - or Roses, as the new scholars would have it. Gogh himself wrote some explanations in that book, among which is a contentious little note in the middle which goes ... hmm ... 'Roses; these must be roses, for I would never deign to paint a sunflower or any such common flower.' That's roughly how it goes."

"Well, I don't see why this would be a problem for art scholarship."

"Recent handwriting analyses have confirmed that this comment must indeed be Gogh's, and probably written in full lucidity at that. So the question in the art world is this: how can we resolve the difference between what Van Gogh writes about Sunflowers, and everything we know about Sunflowers itself?"

"Well, we ought to take Van Gogh at face value, shouldn't we? We ought to interpret what he says as plainly as we can."

"Really? And what would that tell you?"

"That would tell me that those yellow flowers he painted must be roses, not sunflowers."

"Well, no botanist would ever agree with you. It is patently obvious that those are sunflowers. They match in every detail to sunflowers in every stage from bloom to decay; even the little bit of stem we can see looks more like sunflower stems than rose stems."

"Fair enough. That would convince me."

"But it doesn't convince some of the scholars who study Gogh. They make a big deal about the fact that the note was written in Gogh's own hand. 'If Gogh himself said that they were roses, then any claimed, apparent, or observed evidence to the contrary must be invalid in some way or another!' What do you think of that?"

"Well, they do have a point. After all, Gogh himself stated plainly that those were roses; and since Gogh himself painted the pictures, who are we to contradict him?"

"That's just it - that word 'contradict' there. That's what the new scholars are getting wrong. I fully believe, based on all the evidence available, that those flowers are sunflowers and that it's really nonsense to pretend that they are anything else."

"But then you're contradicting Gogh."

She sighed. "Not really. Think of it this way: when I mention the word 'roses', what comes to mind?"

"Red flowers, sweet smell, thorny stems. I don't do biology, so don't ask for anything more."

"Fair enough. But see, that is a literal rose, and a literal rose simply isn't what Gogh painted. So we have to consider that maybe Gogh thought of those flowers as roses, instead of sunflowers. Think about it. What else comes to mind when you think of roses?"

"Romance? Fragrance? Elegance?"

"Well, most of us think that this was what Van Gogh meant in that comment. Van Gogh was really thinking of everything a rose embodies as he painted. We think he may have been involved in deep symbolism as he painted: these paintings probably evoked deep personal significance for him that we will never be able to understand, so much significance that a rose was the symbol of everything he wanted to convey in the Sunflowers paintings. Those were roses to Van Gogh; but no matter what they looked like through the eyes of Gogh's soul, they look exactly like sunflowers to our eyes, and we shouldn't be ashamed or surprised by that."

"Fair enough. So why is there a controversy?"

"Why don't you guess?"

"Well, I'd suppose some scholars might say that it is disrespectful to Gogh to interpret what he said figuratively. They might say that interpreting his roses as a symbolism, or figuratively, or mythically, is as good as ignoring him altogether."

"That's what they say, but they're completely missing the point! We've never ignored what Van Gogh said. In fact, we could do exactly what some people have done - dismiss that note as a plain forgery. We're not willing to do that, but we're not willing to take the easy way out of ignoring our eyes and saying that roses must be yellow with lots of seeds and smooth stems either. We grapple with both and in the process arrive at a figurative explanation of what Van Gogh said that doesn't have to discard it altogether."

"I think I agree with you, even though I know so little about art. On the one hand, some people want to discard the notebook and keep just the paintings. Some others want to discard the paintings by saying that they are something they aren't, and keep the notebook. You're trying to hold both together."

"Yes, but it isn't easy to communicate this to people. You'll hear them say 'There is no good reason to assume that Van Gogh would have written figuratively' - have they forgotten that they're talking about an artist? And yet, when I point to the pictures and tell them that the pictures themselves are good enough reason, they turn around and tell me that I see sunflowers only because I've decided beforehand that those are sunflowers, and that my interpretation of the evidence depends on my mistaken presuppositions!"

"And you're saying that they're gaining ground?"

"Yes. They may be wrong, but they're convincing. I guess people just forget that the Gogh who wrote this notebook must have been the same Gogh who painted those paintings, and that he knew exactly what he was doing in both those endeavors. It is only when we hold Gogh's words and Gogh's works in mutual understanding that we can fully unravel the meaning of Van Gogh's Sunflowers, and not a moment before."

============

But let us again consider the degree to which necessary demonstrations and sense experiences ought to be respected in physical conclusions, and the authority they have enjoyed at the hands of holy and learned theologians. From among a hundred attestations I have selected the following:

"We must also take heed, in handling the doctrine of Moses. that we altogether avoid saying positively and confidently anything which contradicts manifest experiences and the reasoning of philosophy or the other sciences. For since every truth is in agreement with all other truth, the truth of Holy Writ cannot be contrary to the solid reasons and experiences of human knowledge."
​

And in St. Augustine we read:

"If' anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation, not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there."
​

This granted, and it being true that two truths cannot contradict one another, it is the function of expositors to seek out the true senses of scriptural texts. These will unquestionably accord with the physical conclusions which manifest sense and necessary demonstrations have previously made certain to us.

Galileo Galilei, 1615

 

[shernren]

It's been 11 months since I started "The scientific myth of creationism" (about as long as the Flood - heh, heh), and since then I've revisited the theme often in posts which on first sight seem to be unrelated. The theme that creationism is a scientific myth, and the idea of myths in general, has helped me greatly to understand creationism and my own faith better.

But I'm not satisfied with that thread. I was very much a rambling geek then. I still ramble, and I'm still geeky, but I think I have learned enough in the intervening 11 months to try to improve what I tried to say there. In particular, the first few posts have often seemed overly complicated and ad hoc to me, and I often link people to the fourth or fifth page instead of to the OP.

So, since nobody else has shown any interest in this thread, I'll use it to continue my exploration of the scientific myth of creationism.

 

[shernren]

Two professors were walking along one day, when one, an atheist, turned and said to the other: "Don't tell me you're still a Christian?"

"Yes, I am. Why should that be an issue?"

"Because there is absolutely no evidence for Christianity!"

"Is there? I can cite you thousands of pieces of evidence that show that the universe and the earth was created recently and rapidly, and that evolution cannot account for all the biodiversity we see, and that the earth was recently flooded globally."

"Don't start, please."

"Why?"

"Because it doesn't matter."

"Why - because you're afraid of the truth?"

"No, because it really doesn't matter. Just say that all this scientific stuff you've said is correct. That still doesn't make Christianity true!"

"Doesn't it?"

"Of course it doesn't. Think about it. Have any of those proofs shown us that heaven exists?"

"Hmm ... no."

"Or hell?"

"Hmm ... no."

"Has any of that shown that if I die this moment, a part of me will still exist somehow, independent of my dead body?"

"No."

"Has any of it shown that God exists?"

"No."

"Then why do you think that is evidence for Christianity?"

"Because it shows that the Bible is true!"

"The Bible could still be true in the first 11 chapters - and wrong everywhere else."

"How would you know that?"

"Well, I - "

At that moment, the archway under which they were walking collapsed, instantly killing them both.

The two professors met God in Heaven, both knowing where they were headed. But the atheist professor protested: "God, You should have given more proof that You existed!"

God turned to the Christian professor. "Did I give you enough proof that I existed?"

"Actually, ... no."

"Were you ever able to prove that I existed? Or that heaven existed? Or that hell existed?"

"No."

"Then," said God, almost chuckling, "why did you choose to believe Me?"

"Because creation science proved that the Bible was right."

"It didn't," said God. "Creation science chased an obscure, scientific story about nature trying to prove that I existed and trying to prove that the Bible was right. But you know enough people who knew the science of the world inside out and yet couldn't say a kind word to their wives, let alone their colleagues. Science didn't help them be better people. Did you think creation science would help you know Me better?"

"Yes. Didn't it?"

"No, it didn't. Come on, child. Give glory to Me."

"Well ... it was this once. When I was 20. I was half-drunk, driving along the edge of a cliff, when my car veered over the edge and dropped 40 feet. I climbed out of it with only a few scratches; that was when I knew there was a God."

"You see? It was not science which saved you. It was a story that you lived which did."

"But - " the atheist professor interrupted - "surely You didn't expect a story to convince us!"

"Why not? Through the generations the godless have made up stories against Mine to convince themselves that their lives have meaning apart from Me. But the unique, stupendous folly of your generation is that you have tried to cast aside the stories altogether and looked for meaning in science. The atheists think science proves atheism and the creation scientists think that science proves Me; they lay the stories of millenia past by the wayside and scour the physical world for clues. Only a fool would lose his soul to gain the whole world; but the fools of your generation have gained the whole world and forgotten that they ever had souls!"

 

[Tinker Grey]

Those are good.

 

[Assyrian]

Maybe as a Chick tract?

 

[shernren]

Lols.

I really don't know how Stories turned out. I'm not much of a writer, am I?

 

[shernren]

"So you're really going to tell me that love is nothing but a neural response to hormonal secretions?" the old professor asked his philosophy student.

"Yes."

"If those particular hormones are present in your brain and in your blood, there is love, and if they aren't, there isn't love?"

"Yes."

"Well, I'll have to clarify something. You have had a girlfriend for the past two years, right?"

"Yes."

"What if I told you that two years ago, I'd injected her with those hormones that you speak of, and that's why you two are together? Would you still think that she truly loved you?"

"I guess not, though - "

"But the neural response to the hormonal secretions is present! And her every word and move shows it! Isn't that love to you?"

"Well, it wouldn't be love unless she herself had wanted to love me, instead of someone else starting it."

"But scientifically speaking, the response of her brain to her hormones and the response of her brain to my hormones would be identical."

"It would be."

"Therefore, she would love you as much if I had simply injected those hormones into her."

"No, that wouldn't be love!"

"And yet you said a moment ago that scientifically, it would be?"

"Well ... I suppose you're right. Love cannot be reduced to hormones; humanity cannot be reduced to mechanics."

======

The hypothesis that "Hormone X is present in person Y's blood" is a scientific hypothesis; it can be tested, proved right, or falsified. And yet it may have nothing at all to do with the hypothesis that Y loves Z.

In the same way, evolution is a scientific hypothesis; and scientific creationism is nothing more nor less than the statement that evolution as a scientific hypothesis is wrong. Not only do the scientific creationists say that, they (schizophrenically, at times) live as though it is true. And yet, they will propose that if and only if they are correct, then humans deserve to have dignity and respect as creatures in the image of God.

The radical atheist will propose that evolution makes man nothing more than animals; the scientific creationist will argue that evolution is false and therefore man is the child of God. The one who says "If my theory is true, men are mere animals" and the one who says "Your theory isn't true, men are made in God's image" are really saying nearly the same thing in different ways, aren't they? Both of them have agreed to decide man's spiritual identity based on his scientific characteristics, and both of them are profoundly wrong. No creationist would claim that love can be decided in the origin of hormones; why do they claim that man's soul can be found or lost in the origin of his genes?

 

[shernren]

C.S. Lewis has a story of how a man from a country where salt doesn't exist comes to our lands and tastes a bit of salt - he is surprised that we can still taste anything when we put salt in our food, but he has not learned that salt's own flavor brings out the best in everything else.

But I'm going to take the story in a different direction. A man has come from a country where salt doesn't exist. Noting what has come before, we avoid the previous error. We cook him a massive feast - steak, stir-fried vegetables, pasta, soup, pastry, and lots of other stuff. All of which have salt in them, we tell him. He sits and eats and half an hour later he has finished everything. "So," we ask him, "what is salt?"

"Well, salt is oily and brown."

"What?"

"Isn't that true? All your food had oil in it. And all your food had brown bits in them. So that must be salt, right?"

Now that's folly in the opposite direction. You can't figure out how salt works in food by tasting salt alone. And you can't figure out how salt works in food by cooking a whole lot of food and trying to tease out the similarities. The easiest way to figure out how salt works is to cook a dish with salt, and then cook it again without. Then you can taste and see that salt is truly salty.

Now take a moment and think about the default theistic position about God. If the theists are to be believed, God is everywhere at every time in our universe. He constantly upholds His creation by the power of His Word. The creation would be meaningless, purposeless, and void if not for Him. Now if that is the case, then He is present in everything that happens in the universe, whether it is regular or anomalous, understandable or not. There is no scientific process at which we can point and say "that's not of God!", nor any way to build a box into which we can place something and watch it operate without divine influence.

But isn't it strange that some people think the exact opposite? They think that some science is able to exclude God, and that some other science is able to include God. And I'm not just talking about the creationists - I include in this the atheists, who believe just as fervently that evolution works without God. If one scientific theory is true, then God does not exist; if another scientific theory is true, then God exists.

I don't know about you, but I think that's a fairly silly position to take in the light of the theistic declaration that all creation derives its existence from God. Imagine our dear visitor, having finished another meal trying to determine what salt is, standing up and declaring: "If the food is green, it has salt in it; if it is any other color, it doesn't." And imagine him still saying that right after we have told him that there was salt in every dish!

It is quite silly for the atheists to think that science is operating without God. If the theists are right, then the atheists would never notice anything different. But it is similarly silly for the theists to think that their science, and no-one else's, takes God into account. It is the same error, in a different and far subtler direction. Both think that evolution is somehow atheistic, that evolution involves drawing a box up around a certain section of nature and saying "Here there is no God". But as we've seen, one simply cannot draw up such a box.

At least the atheists' doubts are excusable; one cannot think God is everywhere in creation if one does not believe there is a God! But the creationists are the ones who really ought to know better. They are like the visitor, who has now insisted that the pasta has no salt while the steak has salt - while all the while we have tried to hammer into his head that there is salt everywhere in this meal. There is either God everywhere or God nowhere. And if they insist that the evolutionists' methodology is atheistic - well, what does that say about their own? Richard Dawkins' "Methinks it is a weasel" program isn't programmed to accommodate the occasional miracle, but then again neither is Baumgardner's "Terra" simulator. Runaway subduction has as little leeway for the breaking of physical laws as radiometric dating or the law of superposition.

Either God is everywhere in science or God can be nowhere in science. If the former, then any accurate scientific description of the world has God in it, even if it happens to be a description of an old world on which life evolved to its present state. If the latter, then there is as little room for God amidst the formulas, the models, and the experiments of AiG's Technical Journal or Creation ex Nihilo as there is in the petri dishes where evolution is confirmed daily. Either the creationists have no case in proving that evolution is atheistic, or they themselves are as guilty of ridding creation of God in the modernist craze to systematize everything.

Any attempt to use science to prove God is, quite simply, not worth its salt.

 

[Assyrian]

I'll stick to peanuts and margaritas.

I know they have salt.

Everything else is a-halism.