Well, the view that the sun literally rises and sets has been discredited, and rightly so. Why should it be given credit when it happens to be expressed in a religious scripture?
Correct. That’s where “creation science” wants to look like it is actually scientific. It’s not. If I’m not mistaken Cwirla is saying that science and faith (theology is his favorite term) each occupy separate lanes. Religion is not “provable” in an evidentiary sense. I discuss this subject in Evolving Certainties:
+++
In a book titled The Limits of Science, published in 1984, British biologist (and atheist) Peter Medawar (1915-1987) said that there are some questions that science cannot and will never be able to answer, such as the purpose of life or the existence of God.28 Science, says Medawar, must remain noncommittal when it comes to such things.29 The majority of scientists recognize these limits. But those who subscribe to what has come to be called philosophical naturalism, including the previously mentioned new atheists, deny the metaphysical and argue that science is the only legitimate method of ascertaining truth, a point of view known as scientism.
The ground rules of science require it be limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. Because science is limited in this way, believing scientists are free to practice their faith without interference.30 Unfortunately, many anti-evolutionists conflate philosophical naturalism (which rejects the supernatural altogether) with methodological naturalism (which maintains neutrality toward religion), arguing that all of science has an anti-religious bias.31 Science, with its self-imposed limits, has been compared to a fisherman’s net that cannot catch small fish because the holes in the net are too large.32 As far as Christians are concerned, those “small fish” are elements of religious belief which swim right through the scientific nets. The bottom line is this: using science in general, or the theory of evolution in particular, to argue for or against the existence of God is simply inappropriate.
+++
Defoe, Terry. Evolving Certainties: Resolving Conflict at the Intersection of Faith and Science (pp. 51-52). Terry Defoe. Kindle Edition.
In that case, why should we believe in it? Shouldn’t our beliefs be based in evidence (not necessarily empirical evidence, but evidence), otherwise we would have no way of knowing if they are true? (I’m asking this as a Christian myself.)
The best answer I can give is that the insights found in the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth are timeless and resonate with human life and experience.
I find this over and over again in the parables. Are we like the reckless younger brother in the prodigal story? Or are we like the entitled, peeved older brother? Are we willing to stone the woman caught in adultery or are we happy that the men who caught the two of us in adultery came to shame her (and Jesus as well) but let me off the hook and told me to skedaddle?
Do we pass by on the other side of human need, or do we apply a little compassion, backed up with a financial commitment? Do we use our gifts and talents or bury them in the ground? Do we understand the power of forgiveness to set us free from an endlless cycle of recrimination and blame? Are there parts of the Old Testament that make me cringe? Absolutely!
On the other hand, there are parts of the Old Testament that prompt me, and encourage me, like Jonah, to speak up even though that may be the last thing I want to do? You bet! At the end of the day, the Christian faith enriches my life. The evidence for the veracity of the faith is a changed life – meaning and peace. As a pastor for more than 40 years, I’ve never tried to prove the faith. I’ve tried to live it.
Sorry for the wordy answer, but I wanted to take the time needed to put a frame on my faith. I would recommend checking out the American Scientific Affiliation and the Affiliation of Christian Biologists on YouTube. Or send an email with your questions to biologist Dr. Darrel Falk of Point Loma University in San Diego or biologist Dr. Rebecca Dielschneider at Providence Seminary in Winnipeg, Manitoba. I know both of these individuals (Darrel wrote the Foreword to my book) and know they would be glad to share their own experiences reconciling faith and science.
3 Likes
But iss there another legitimate method? If so, what is it?
Not really true, or true only because “supernatural” is effectively defined as “that which cannot be studied” or “that regarding which no testable hypotheses can be formed”. And the reason for that is that God is too vague a hypothesis to have any observable consequences. But if God were well enough defined it could possibly be tested by science. Certainly one could test at least some particular hypotheses of God’s nature.
2 Likes
I would strenuously disagree with this claim.
Firstly, science is not so much “blind to the supernatural”, as not amnesiac to the fact that, in the centuries that proto-science was open to the supernatural, the supernatural did not progress it by as much as a millimetre.
The relationship between science and naturalism is not that science presumes naturalism; it’s that science has provisionally concluded that naturalism is the best picture of the world we have available. We lay out all of the ontologies we can think of, assign some prior credences to them, collect as much information we can, and update those credences accordingly. At the end of the process, we find that naturalism gives the best account of the evidence we have, and assign it the highest credence. New evidence could lead to future adjustments in our credences, but right now naturalism is well out ahead of the alternatives. [Sean Carroll, The Big Picture]
Secondly, it can be claimed that science is better characterised as the practice of Methodological Empiricism than Methodological Naturalism:
Science isn’t characterized by methodological naturalism but by methodological empiricism—the idea that knowledge is derived from our experience of the world, rather than by thought alone. Science is a technique, not a set of conclusions. The technique consists of imagining as many different ways the world could be (theories, models, ways of talking) as we possibly can, and then observing the world as carefully as possible. [Ibid]
Of course, lacking empirical evidence of the supernatural, there is no functional difference between methodological empiricism and methodological naturalism.
1 Like
Excellent descriptive term. I’ll be using that.
1 Like
I’ve added this term to my vocabulary. Thanks!
1 Like
I don’t think that works. Suppose someone claims he has the ability to walk on water and come back to life after being crucified. We can test those claims empirically. That would be the case regardless of whether his abilities were natural or supernatural.
I’m unclear on how your example elucidates why ‘that doesn’t work’.
In that example, a person can have two different understandings of the observation. One could conclude that the person who can walk on water and rise from the dead is a supernatural being, or is at least subject to the powers of a supernatural being who is giving him those abilities, and therefore we do not need to revise our understanding of the natural world. The science books will still say that, according to natural laws, people cannot walk on water or rise from the dead.
OTOH, if someone is adhering to methodological naturalism, they will be obliged to figure out how the observations can be incorporated into our overall understanding of how the natural world operates. That is to say, the apparently supernatural acts would be presumed to have an explanation in the laws that govern how everything in the universe operates. It will be taken as an opportunity to figure out how ANYONE could walk on water and rise from the dead.
These two different approaches are not distinguished by the reliance on empiricism. Rather, they are distinguished by the underlying position on whether naturalism is (assumed to be) true.
Theses 19, 20, and 21.
Thesis 19
Science and Theology serve one another and are not enemies when each stays in its vocational lane. Science serves Theology by clearing away false mechanisms which lead to superstition. It grounds our life in the creaturely world of the material and guards us against a gnostic denial of reality. The practice of science also exercises our God-given first article gifts of reason and senses in service of others.
Thesis 20
Theology serves Science in clearing away false deities. Before science could study the natural world, the natural world first had to be cleansed of deities lest study should provoke the anger of the gods. It is not surprise that science flourishes under Monotheism. Theology continues to serve Science by reminding it that there is a transcendent and imminent God above and beyond, as well as in, with, and under the natural order, and that He can be known in the person of Jesus Christ, the creative Word made Flesh, the crucified, risen, and ascended One, the Mystery who fills all in all. This is what the church has always done, since the New Testament and the early church fathers.
Thesis 21
The proper vocational distinction of Science and Theology provides the necessary freedom of mind, heart, and conscience for each to pursue its proper work. Science is permitted to pursue its study of the natural world and its mechanisms without the interference of theology. The science classroom is free to study scientific method and theory without having to account for the Scriptures. That is the work of theology. Theology is free to pursue its study of the texts of Scripture without the interference of science, and to consider the theological implications of scientific knowledge. Theology will be liberated from having to defend the scientific accuracy of the Bible just as Science will be freed from having to defend its theories against the Bible. Where Science and Theology disagree, these should be left in paradoxical tension. Perhaps one or the other is mistaken, a theory or interpretation needs to be adjusted (this is not unknown in either vocation), or perhaps these are matters of perspective, “from above” and “from below,” or just different ways of saying the same thing.
So many questions. How does theology clear away false deities? What makes him think that study would provoke the anger of the gods any more or less than it would provoke the anger of God? Is this not a claim that Hindus or Zoroastrians could not do science? What use is it to science to be reminded of a transcendent and imminent* God, etc.? Is theology in fact a way of determining the truth of any proposition? How, if at all, could we resolve any tension between science and theology? Why must science and theology be capitalized in some cases and not in others? Who put the rang in the rangalangadingdong?
*I’m suspecting that was supposed to be “immanent”, unless God isn’t here now but is expected soon.
2 Likes
Thanks, I think I understand your point better now.
But if, as Carroll suggests, methodological naturalism is not a hard a priori rule, but rather a ‘provisional conclusion’, this difference would not appear to be problematical. If sufficient evidence of the supernatural developed over time, this provisional conclusion would need to be reevaluated (or at least the boundary between natural and supernatural redefined) in any case.
The advantage that I can see in using the ‘Methodological Empiricism’ label is that it avoids confusion about science evaluating the empirical consequences of purported supernatural events – for example the Genesis Flood and the Shroud of Turin.
1 Like
If these “supernatural” events were sufficiently confirmed by empirical evidence, they would then be considered natural phenomena. That is my point.
The confusion arises because believers in the supernatural fail to appreciate how their epistemology, such as it is, smuggles in naturalism when it is convenient for them, but then abandon it when this suits their purposes. For instance, they will insist that the belief in the resurrection of Jesus could not have been the result of a mass simultaneous hallucination, because such a thing is scientifically implausible. But then, with the next breath, they will accuse skeptics of the resurrection of “scientism” when we point out that the scientific evidence against resurrections is at least as strong.
3 Likes
This also concisely describes ID and creationist pseudoscience wrt biology.
2 Likes
This is a helpful distinction.
I do not see the scientific method as a-theistic. It tests generalizations about nature and leads to further generalizations. The miraculous is out of scope because these are purposed and are exceptions to the general. But I see no imperative that God must be present for the miraculous and absent for the general.
1 Like
Here are the last three of the twenty-four theses from LC-MS pastor William Cwirla. Pastor Cwirla earned a chemistry degree from Berkeley and worked at a scientific vocation for several years before entering seminary. It’s good to keep in mind that the primary audience for these thoughts is fellow clergy, most of whom are young earth creationists. That may help to explain why these theses occasionally include theological concepts and terminology unfamiliar to those outside the theological walled garden. Again, I will do my best to respond to youir comments and questions from my own perpective and not presume to speak for Bill. Thank you for your challenging and insightful discussion, My goal in sharing these thoughts is not to persuade anyone to take on a radically different paradigm but to increase understanding of the kinds of discussion taking place these days in conservative and fundamentalist Christian denominations.
-
The proper distinction of Science and Theology relaxes the conversation between fellow believers and between believers and the unbelieving world. We are free to discuss our interpretations of the scientific data and our interpretations of the Scripture texts without making the conversation a zero sum game of right vs wrong, good vs evil. Defensiveness brings out the worst in our fallen humanity, and we resort to the animal instincts of fight and flight rather than human reason and faith. This is evident in the rancorous debates between proponents of differing perspectives, usually to the entertainment of their supporters, and the sale of their books, and the divisive infighting that often occurs within church bodies and among brothers and sisters in Christ. When science and theology are properly distinguished, we are free to have a non-confrontational, non-defensive, open conversation over the theological, ethical, political, and economic implications of our ever-growing body of scientific knowledge.
-
The proper distinction of Science and Theology provides freedom for the church in mission to proclaim the God of the ancient Scriptures into the context of its modern scientific age. Science shapes our culture and thought. The church need not correct the scientific notions of her day or quarrel with scientific theories, nor should she even try, any more than a plumber should do electrical work. The church can do what she has always been called to do, preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified for the justification of the sinner, using the language, images, and worldview of its time and place. Science can be a rich source of illustrative theological metaphors for our scientific age, just as our Lord used the agricultural and economic metaphors of His day to proclaim His reign in parables. The church in mission must learn the science of its culture not battle against it.
-
The proper distinction of Science and Theology is a proper distinction of the Law and the Gospel. Science is about natural law, the laws that govern the universe, the physical constants, the ordered mechanisms of chemistry and biology. There is no Gospel in Science nor can scientific method discern any good news in the created order. Theology is focused on the Gospel, the Christ-center of God’s revealed Word. The law, in theology, is not the law of science, but the spiritual diagnosis of our Sin that leads to eternal Death, the penultimate Word to the Gospel’s ultimate Word. This is not a law subject to scientific scrutiny, but one under which every human being lives, regardless of his scientific viewpoint. When theology meddles in science, and when science meddles in theology, law and gospel are confused in much the same way as when church and state are confused. When that happens, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is diminished or even obscured, and our scientific age is left with the impression that it must choose between science and Scripture in order to be saved. Against this, the church must be ever vigilant, lest in advocating for the ancient “science” of Scripture, we forsake the Christ of whom the Scripture speaks today.
3 Likes
And those most committed to a zero sum game are always the hardest to persuade that there might be a better path.
I think most here are already aware, but the only thing YEC hate more than atheists are “compromising” Christians.
Thank you for posting these. It’s always good to see people try to build constructive solutions.
1 Like
My plan in the short term is to continue this discussion thread by taking concepts or arguments from Evolving Certainties and offer them up for sacrifice [sorry, tongue in cheek, I meant to say “discussion”!] by the group. Don’t get me wrong, this community has been eminently fair with the material submitted so far!
1 Like