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

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Philosurfer

We all play our professional games/jobs/vocations, but we live in an unprofessional world. Dialogue is the preferred Barbour category for me, although I’ve never seen anybody elucidate just what dialogue actually entails/means. We can point to good and bad examples of it, e.g., Good = Kepler and the Church, Bad = Galileo and the Church, Good= this forum?,

Didn’t I just do that? What do you think…

@swamidass

This hits on one of our core concerns. To protect the neutrality of science, we need to give it autonomy. To protect theology, also, it has legitimate autonomy too. I’ve been starting to write about this more, using the metaphor of dialogue. Good dialogue requires constructive resistance. What is legitimate constructive resistance though? How can science press on theology? How can theology press on science?

There are two things I see.

1. Autonomy of language. Science and theology both have legitimate autonomy to use words in different ways, in ways that are internally consistent even they come into conflict with each other.

2. Legitimacy of questions . Science and theology both have autonomy to question each other. Such question should be taken seriously, even though they arise from an external source.

From that starting point. There seems to be an opportunity for real understanding to grow. We should, however, grant that theology and science are not expected to speak univocally. They will say different things. This is as much a multicultural conversation as it is multilingual.

[Cootsona (Greg Cootsona)]

Daniel,
I believe you asked for the syllabus of my religion and science course, but I can’t locate the specific spot in this thread. If so, here’s a link to the pdf of my fall 2017 syllabus.
You can find me at Chico State email, GCootsona@csuchico.edu if you’d like more materials.
Greg

[Cootsona (Greg Cootsona)]

I think you have some good points on tolerance, and I would would add that this is a key value for emerging adults. We will probably have to start there–engage it, refine the reasons behind it, critique, and offer something more robust. ***

@swamidass

• The revolution of Ancient DNA (David Reich’s work is a good primer)

• Science and Injustice: Tuskegee, Henrietta Lacks, and segregation: Simulating Segregation: The Parable of Polygons.

• Profiling and Bias in Black Box AI Programs.

• The relationships between ancestry, inheritance, and injustice.

• Confession, Honesty, and Confidence. Much the work we do here is oriented around this. Though the Scientific Virtues Project has important correlates.

• Models for integration that do not depend on agreement.

As for these topics, bravo! Especially in articulating the importance of race in discussing science. I should have mentioned that many of the topics I raised came from the 15-month study I did of emerging adult attitudes on science and religion, especially how they were formed and how they change through Science for Students and Emerging Young Adults or SEYA. I know I’ve linked this grant above, but I’ll offer the link to SEYA again because there’s a summary paper we wrote with our findings.

All that to say, my topics are, in some sense, empirically derived, not primarily what I’d like to see discussed.
Greg

[Cootsona (Greg Cootsona)]

I’m not sure if we’ll come back to future topics in science and religion, which Josh and I are outlining.

Nevertheless, I also sense that the three days of the forum are coming to a close soon. In addition, it’s my wife’s birthday, and we’re about to throw a party. So I doubt I’ll be able to post before this forum closes.

I’ll move to two items as I wrap this up.

1. Can I invite people to my blog if they want to see weekly reflections on topics of interested? As one example–Andy Walsh’s new book, “Something New and Fresh in the Multiverse,” which will also be featured on Peaceful Science.

2. Here are my closing words from Mere Science and Christian Faith adapted a bit:

Because of the stories I’ve heard from emerging adults who have either rejection Christian faith because of science (Jim and Beth) or have seen an exciting integration (Dave, Sarah), I believe bridging the divide between mere science and Christian faith is a vital task. It’s for them that I want you and me to write better, true stories. To be honest,I’m not sure I by myself know how to write this story. Instead it’s something we as the church need to do together. (Nonetheless, I leave with the hope that this book has provided some useful plot points and strategies.)

I do know, however, that these true, better stories are also beautiful. They will bring together the goodness and truth of the Good News with the beauty of God. There truth becomes beautiful. And with that sentence it should not be lost that rhetoric—as an engagement with beauty—should be used in concert with philosophy—as the pursuit of truth.

Truth is only worth engaging if it’s beautiful, and beauty is that which allures us.

And this is a particular beauty, the beauty of life’s making sense, of satisfying our need for deep abiding happiness, for Aristotle’s “human flourishing,” and for Jesus’s promise of “abundant life” (John 10:10). Drawing on these ancient, wise voices indicates that this obviously is not a new idea, and I concur here with the great twentieth century French physicist Henri Poincaré,

The scientist does not study nature because it is useful to do so. He studies it because he takes pleasure in it; and he takes pleasure in it because it is beautiful. If nature were not beautiful, it would not be worth knowing and life would not be worth living….

Let’s can join hands with Poincaré and with the ancient theology’s love of beauty or philokalia .

Our final goal is this: To weave together mainstream science and the good news of mere Christianity into a narrative that’s truly beautiful and beautifully true.

[Philosurfer (Daniel Deen)]

@Cootsona

You’re right. I’m much more positive about science and about scientists. Betting against science is just not a good idea, strategically and historically, especially when you’re taking on an overarching grant theory of science like evolution that has been tested by a wide variety of sciences for 160 years.

I’m actually very positive about science as well. I’m just more inclined to remind people that scientific theories tend to go the way of the dodo – 160yrs is great, but it was right about the 200yr mark that Newton’s theory of gravity was overturned. You couple the contingent nature of science with the psychological data of human proclivities toward cognitive biases and I’m simply more cautious with your integration thesis. This is not to say that we shouldn’t ponder these issues… I’m just not sure we’ve quite figured out how to ponder them yet!

@Cootsona

Bob (or Robert) Russell would probably have some good contemporary examples since he’s worked with CMI extensively. He, for example, uses Wolfhart Pannenberg’s theory of time to speak to, and even adjust, some parts of special relativity in Time in Eternity and it’s brilliant.

Thanks! I’ll take a look.

@Cootsona

In addition, the worldview that arises from Christian faith is contingent, not necessary.

@Cootsona

That would be one way in which theology affect science.

Thanks for this. I know the metaphysical sorts of stories. However, and this is my philosophical training not my Christian convictions, metaphysics is a zero-sum game in that certain assumptions are simply asserted and then denied by people with different metaphysical assumptions. It may be that science as we know it flourished with Christian metaphysical assumptions, but if that is the only way that theology has a direct impact on science, I’m not sure much good is gained. Or to put it another way, what does the theologian offer the scientist if all the theologian has to offer is metaphysical grounds for the science.

@Cootsona

We keep the end in mind.

@Cootsona

Is that any contribution to your question?

Yeah, that provides some mind fodder! My intent was a bit rhetorical and simply “me thinking out loud at the end of a big session!” However, your response did spark another thought. You teach at a state school. I assume you are in a religious studies department. Do you find any tension in navigating the the science/religion waters at a state school with a, again assuming, Christian background focusing on Jesus as the author and perfecter of your faith?

@swamidass

I need to clarify this point because it is important. Keep in mind my confidence. I’ve been public and active in my faith for the last five years, as an untenured professor at a secular institution. For the stakes have been high: tenure, which I just recently was granted.

I don’t doubt that you’ve had a stressful couple of years, tangling with all the groups you’ve tangled with while also maintaining credibility at an R1 institution in the biological sciences. It is part of the reason I wanted you to speak to my students and why I keep coming back to see what people are talking about here at PeacefulScience!

@swamidass

I understand the complexities you are discussing, but I do not have the luxury of taking a squishy or ambiguous position here. When ever I put something out there I know it can (and likely will) be closely scrutinized. The fatal error is to falsely claim the authority of science in support of non-scientific claims. Such abuse of authority is not tolerated. So there are very sharp lines and rules I must keep. Even if these rules do not seem well supported from the outside, I received them as established and immutable. In some important sense, I inherit these rules when I choose to become a scientist. Carefully following them, I’ve been able to live above reproach in my scientific engagement.

Fair enough. My overarching point with the demarcation language is that we all play by rules when in our disciplines. The problem is that our disciplines are but a microcosm of the life we actually live. Thus, dialogue will almost always take place outside the microcosm of our disciplines. In your lab, the rules are strict and your conversation with lab partners is probably nothing like the conversation you have with us – even when you are discussing the science. This is because, here, you are part of that larger conversation. @Patrick undoubtedly as well as others will keep you honest when he sees violation of the Rules, but I take the public conversation to be a little more squishy and ambiguous than any of us like.

@swamidass

Didn’t I just do that? What do you think…

Yep, I dig it here. I think your Rules and the…

@swamidass

• Autonomy of language. Science and theology both have legitimate autonomy to use words in different ways, in ways that are internally consistent even they come into conflict with each other.

• Legitimacy of questions . Science and theology both have autonomy to question each other. Such question should be taken seriously, even though they arise from an external source.

…are great conversational guidelines. You have started something that hopefully will lead to your fifth option. I have seen more genuine conversation and genuine frustration on this forum than I can count. This is a good thing. Much of the toil will end in fruitless trees, but the fruit that is born/survives will be all the more fertile.

I mispoke when I said “nobody has elucidated just what dialogue actually entails/means.” I should have said something like, “I’ve never seen it practiced particualrly well in an interdisciplinary context outside of cetain historical contexts.” This is why I included this forum with a question mark – best I’ve seen so far, but can we keep it going. I hope so!

@Cootsona

Our final goal is this: To weave together mainstream science and the good news of mere Christianity into a narrative that’s truly beautiful and beautifully true.

I really like the play with goodness, truth, and beauty – Thanks Greg!

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Thank you for the great conversation Greg. You are a real wealth of knowledge. I’m looking forward to following up on many of the threads you’ve given us here.

There has been real conversation and genuine conversation in this dialogue.

@Philosurfer

You have started something that hopefully will lead to your fifth option. I have seen more genuine conversation and genuine frustration on this forum than I can count. This is a good thing. Much of the toil will end in fruitless trees, but the fruit that is born/survives will be all the more fertile.

Perhaps pursuing peace raises everyones hopes. It calls out the best of us, but it also opens us up to real disappointment. The type of conversation we are finding here is between camps that disagree. In the end, we will most often still disagree. Real conflicts come to the surface in dialogue, and it can even confirm our worst fears about one another. This brings us to a grand paradox…

@swamidass

Civility is not an end goal to work towards in my view. I instead focus on truthfulness (even if it leads to conflict) and living in family (even though proximity breeds conflict). Perhaps we mean different things by constructive dialogue, because I observe the most constructive conversation are not always civil. The most civil conversations are not always honest.

So why enter conversations that are likely to increase conflict? There is a chance here to uncover something greater. I like how @Cootsona ends, and I quote him here.

@Cootsona

Our final goal is this: To weave together mainstream science and the good news of mere Christianity into a narrative that’s truly beautiful and beautifully true.