> From: Loren Haarsma <lhaarsma@calvin.edu>
> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:23:58 -0400 (EDT)
> To: _American Sci Affil <asa@calvin.edu>
> Subject: Atheistic portrayal of science in popular culture.
>
>
>
>
> Question:
> If science, in its proper context, is compatible with Christian faith;
THIS IS A GOAL TO REACH FOR. IT IS NOT THE CURRENT STATE. THE CURRENT
CONTEXT FOR SCIENCE IS HUMANISM, WHICH IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH CHRISTIANITY.
> if science, as _professionally_ practiced today, is for the most part
> religiously neutral;
SCIENCE IS NOT RELIGIOUSLY NEUTRAL. SOME SCIENTISTS ARE. READ SUCH AUTHORS
AS DANIEL DENNETT AND YOU WILL SEE HOW SOME SCIENTISTS ATTACK CRISTIANITY.
>then why is science, as portrayed in _popular_ culture, so often colored in
>naturalistic/atheistic hues?
IT DOES SUPPORT BOTH NATURALISTIC AND ATHEISTIC VIEWS.
>
> The students in my January-term Christianity-and-science class asked
> that question. They then brainstormed some answers to that question.
THEY FORGOT TO CHALLENGE THE INITIAL ASSUMPTIONS.
> (The students were Christina Alexander, Joel Alexander, Benjamin
> Anderson, Justin Apple, Jennifer Bergman, Clark Cully, Christopher
> Dutil, Susan Greiner, Jonathan Kornoelje, Daniel Quigley, Lindsey
> Ruffin, Carol Vanderveen, Angelique VanDyke, Clinton Weening, Jonathan
> Zylstra.)
>
> They came up with an impressive list of answers, which I would like to
> share. (Perhaps people in this discussion group can add more reasons.)
>
>
> 1) North-American society today equates "religious neutrality" with the
> complete absence of talk about God --- functional agnosticism or
> functional atheism. So when people today attempt to talk about science
> and the results of science in a "religiously neutral" way, they believe
> that, in order to do so, they must make no mention of God at all.
NO WORLDVIEW IS RELIGIOUSLY NEUTRAL. ITS BASIC ASSUMPTIONS WILL REVEAL THAT
RELIGOUS BASE.
>
> 2) People confuse methodological naturalism with philosophical
> naturalism.
NEITHER IS A HEALTHY PERSPECTIVE
>
> 3) The methodology of science is good for seeking truth at one level,
> the physical level. It is does not give much insight into truths at
> other levels, such as the spiritual level. When looking at nature,
> everyone --- scientists and non-scientists alike --- ordinarily reads
> spiritual meaning into it, especially issues such as the beginning and
> end of the universe, the beginning of human life, the functioning of
> the brain, etc. When non-scientists see scientists treat these issues
> with the methodology of science (emphasizing only truths at the
> physical level), they wonder if they were _wrong_ to think about them
> spiritually. They wonder if naturalistic/atheistic thinking is "all
> that science allows."
YOUR STUDENTS MUST LEARN TO SEPARATE SCIENTIFIC FACTS FROM AUTHORITATIVE
FACTS BASED ON A WORKABLE STORY. EXAMINE BASIC ASSUMPTIONS.
>
> 4) Every person has a desire to be "independent of God." When people
> see science giving us greater knowledge and power, they are tempted to
> adopt "the progress of science" into their desire for independence from
> God.
THIS IS HOW SCIENCE OFFERS ITS OWN ROAL TO SALVATION BASED ON "THE
INDIVIDUAL CAN DO IT". "WE DO NOT NEED GOD". THIS IS BLIND HUMANISM SERVING
THE SELF NOT GOD. WE ARE INCAPABLE OF MORAL JUDGMENT WITHOUT THE GUIDANCE OF
GOD.
>
> 5) Whenever people believe a theological or spiritual premise (for
> example, the premise that "God created human beings"), they almost
> always attach some assumptions about mechanism (e.g. they have in mind
> some hypothesis about _how_ God created human beings). If and when the
> findings of science disagree with the _mechanism_ that they pictured,
> they interpret this as science attacking their _theological_ belief.
YOUR STUDENTS NEED TO BE CRITICAL OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATIONS. CREATION IN
7 DAYS CAN BE CRITICIZED IN MANY WAYS. DO NOT TAKE DAYS AS MEANING 24
HOURS. TRY TO SEPARATE SCIENTIFIC FACTS FROM AUTHORITATIVE FACTS. THE BIBLE
OFFERS PRIMARILY AUTHORITATIVE FACTS.
>
> 6) Because of attitudes within the church, many scientists who are
> Christian may be discouraged from writing books and speaking publicly
> on these issues -- which leaves the voice of naturalistic/atheistic
> interpreters of science mostly unchallenged.
WITNESSING TO THE TRUTH IS NOT EASY. READ "HOW NOW SHALL WE LIVE?" BY
CHARLES COLSON AND NABCY PEARCEY.
>
>
> As you see, the list is not only impressive, but also somewhat
> frightening.
ONLY IF YOUR OWN WORLDVIEW IS UNSTABLE. THE TASK OF EVERY STUDENT IS TO
BUILD A HEALTHY WORLDVIEW. THEY MUST BE OPEN TO OTHER VIEWS AND SEEK THE
TRUTH, WHICH IS ALWAYS BEYOND THE SELF OR ANY COMMUNITY.
>It reveals just how large a problem we face as we try to
> educate people that science and Christian faith are not enemies.
INDEED, THE PROBLEM IS HUGE. EVERY WORLDVIEW NEEDS TO BE OPEN TO INTENTIONAL
CHANGE TO THAT WORLDVIEW. WE ALL HAVE LEARNED TO DEFEND WHAT WE THINK IS
CERTAIN, EVEN WHEN IT IS NOT CERTAIN.
>
> ============
>
> Loren Haarsma
> Calvin College
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 16 2000 - 12:59:17 EDT