Greg Cootsona: "Mere Science" and Adam's Empty Chair

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Cootsona thank you so much for the thoughtful engagement.

What Scientists Teach

@Cootsona

Scientists have also taught me honesty and a somewhat recalcitrant commitment to avoid easy answers by pondering intricacies we would have never guessed. (This may be why, in fact, some believers resist science—because scientists resist easy answers.)

I really love how you put this Greg. Science an invitation to the question, not the answers. That is, honestly, how it has reshaped me. We are wired in many ways to find confidence in answers, but science beckons us to questions. That is the great call of science.

Making Room in the Church

@Cootsona

My view is that, in order to integrate with mainstream science, we can affirm both an historical and typological Adam and Eve, but that that a non-historical, though clearly typological, Adam is most fitting with scientific evidence.

My deeper conviction is that we have to make room in the church for both position two and three below.

@Cootsona

Position Two: Many (Keller, Swamidass, Fugle) conclude that mainstream science does not disprove an historical Adam and Eve, and they also assert that the two are both typological and historical.

Position Three: Others (C.S. Lewis, Collins, Lamoreux) hold that Adam and Eve and typological but not historical.

I could not agree more. We need to make space for diversity here in the Church, so that you, @fuglega, Keller, and all of us together are welcome. Thank you again for your consistent work towards this.

Exchange or Intermingle

@Cootsona

I understand where you’re going with the distinction between “exchange” and “intermingle,” and I’ll do a Swamidass here and disambiguate our meanings (as I understand it):

Theory/In Principle: We do best first to seek to integrate science and theology and secondly to seek independence when it’s appropriate. (I’d even add conflict here when the two are clearly at odds.)

In Practice (and this is why I used the word): Einstein, like many scientists (Hoyle, Krauss, Gingrich), let the two interact in a way that isn’t always entirely clean. Worldview (that philosophy/theology) intermingle. And really, how do I know as a theologian what are always the motivations for the way I translate what I’ve learned about science into my theology?

I get what you are saying, but at question here is some very clear lines and rules in science. I think you are just fine with these rules, but the language here unnecessarily seems to challenge them. This is very consequential, as it can inadvertently steer students into science into serious conflict with professional consequences.

Using your language here, I would insist that in all circumstances except ethical concerns, science is independent (i.e. has autonomy from) theological concerns. Intermingling in that threat or questions the autonomy of science is vigorously opposed, rightly so. There can, should and is a conversation and exchange with science and theology. However, that autonomy must be emphasized. Far from placing science in privileged place, I see a similar autonomy for theology too.

Part of this up for debate. Maybe I’m not explaining this correctly. However this is also a fixed geography that must be understood by students so they can navigate the minefields here.

Science and Technology

@Cootsona

You do straddle the line, and I’d like to learn more from you on this.

I’ll say that, in Mere Science and Christian Faith, I was making broad, popular points, and that to distinguish between science and technology just doesn’t land with emerging adults. In fact, strategically speaking, we can bring the two together with great success.

Why not do both at the same time?

Why not bring them together, and also help students understand their distinctives? I think you are right, by the way, that “technology” is a conversation partner left out of the conversation that we need to bring in a full participant. So yes, we should bring the two into conversation, just as we bring science and theology into conversation. However, I would resist the impression that science and technology are largely the same.

From a consumer view, technology and science can blur together, I agree. However, from a practitioner view, there is wide gap between the “technologist” and the “scientist”. In this sense, carefully making distinctions between the two brings us to questions of identity, values, and character. This becomes deeply compelling to students, and humanizing too.

I said that science can be a humanizing corrective to technology, but the opposite is true too. Technology can be a humanizing corrective to science. Science takes to questions of human origins (where we came from), but technology brings us to questions of trans-humanism (where we are going). Both are grand questions that are different, with one engaging the past and other shaping the future. Both are linked to the grandest of all: What does it mean to be human? For that reason, I do think it is important to bring them together, but also delineate and dignify their distinct contributions.

Helping Others Enter

@Cootsona

I began to teach this engagement of faith and science in the church. That started in 1996. (Actually it goes back to 1992 while I was working on my PhD, but I won’t get bogged down in details.)

@Cootsona. In 1992 I entered Junior High, and was a young earth creationist. This is when I first read More than a Carpenter, and found an independent faith in Jesus. This right near the beginning of a long a difficult search for confident faith in a scientific world.

You have been doing this for 26 years. Thank you so much for your dedicated work for all this time. I must say I have learned so much for your posts here. Your book is for a more popular level, but I personally hope to learn more from you in formats like this. You have a wealth of wisdom here. Thank you for sharing it so generously.

Searching for Confidence and Authenticity

@Cootsona

I’ve been working a lot with other Christian leaders, and the key question is what is the “felt need” for them in their ministry, and why would they engage science? As I’ve posted here and elsewhere, I think it’s at least about articulating the Gospel to today’s scientifically and technologically savvy world, and it’s about reading the two books because they both give glory to God. What do you think? How can engaging science be connected with discipleship and worship?

I hope you read this link and help me think about it more deeply. In the current model for engagement it appears that the incarnational aspect of our faith is deemphasized, and usually lost. Science becomes an intellectual topic, rather than an invitation to be a scientist that follows Jesus. In this reduction, fundamental features of orthodox faith are very difficult to recover. For me, the notion of “confession” and “presence” are becoming central to my identity, and identity is leading the way in my integration. I am a scientist in the Church and Christian in science, giving a truthful account of what I have seen in service of the Church.

The Confessing Scientist

So here is the thing. Authenticity, identity, confidence, these are felt needs in students. This model of incarnational integration speaks directly to them. It is perhaps most salient when scientists tell their story. Please look at this:

http://peacefulscience.org/swamidass-confident-fatih.pdf

What do you see of value here? How can this be recovered in the current patterns?