I regret the dogmatism and the SHOUTING. Neither is necessary.
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:56:59 -0400 James W Stark <stark2301@voyager.net>
writes:
>
> > 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 the context for science is necessarily humanism and incompatible with
Christianity, how could both Stark and Haarsma practice science? Or has
Stark abandoned faith? Either that, or he is grossly inconsistent.
> > 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.
>
My, my. Since some scientists attack Christianity, all science is
antireligious. This is so ridiculous as not even to be fallacious, for
fallacies have to have at least a semblance of connection.
> >then why is science, as portrayed in _popular_ culture, so often
> colored in
> >naturalistic/atheistic hues?
>
> IT DOES SUPPORT BOTH NATURALISTIC AND ATHEISTIC VIEWS.
>
And, if chemistry is a science, Stark must have adopted naturalism and
atheism--unless his dogmatic claim is bunk.
> >
> > 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.
>
This must be understood merely as requiring that they did not cater to
Stark's dogmatic 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.
Since when is science a worldview? It is practiced efficiently by Hindus,
Buddhists, Moslems, agnostics, atheists, and members of many Christian
groups. All these scientists subscribe to different and incompatible
worldviews. Yet their science agrees whatever their faith.
> >
> > 2) People confuse methodological naturalism with philosophical
> > naturalism.
> NEITHER IS A HEALTHY PERSPECTIVE
If methodological naturalism is unhealthy, how can chemistry be
practiced? Where, in the chemical equations, does miracle enter?
> >
> > 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.
But you have to agree with mine or I'll yell at you. Are you sure?
> >
> > 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.
>
This does not mean that science is humanism, but that humanists twist
science to "support" their position. I recall that the medieval torturers
twisted the devices invented by ancient physicians to produce pain rather
than to reduce it. Men are good at forcing things into the desired mold.
> >
> > 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.
Curious. The Bible gives authoritative facts which require no
interpretation. If we just defer to Stark, we'll know the TRUTH. Here I
thought "I am the truth" applied only to my Lord.
> >
> > 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.
Isn't it too bad that Haarsma and his students are not built on the Rock
which is Stark?
> >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.
> >
It would also help to recognize the difference between a worldview and a
working hypothesis. Haarsma makes sense. I wish I could say the same for
Stark.
> > ============
> >
> > Loren Haarsma
> > Calvin College
>
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 16 2000 - 16:56:00 EDT