> From: dfsiemensjr@juno.com
> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:46:36 -0600
> To: stark2301@voyager.net
> Cc: lhaarsma@calvin.edu, asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: Atheistic portrayal of science in popular culture.
>
> I regret the dogmatism and the SHOUTING. Neither is necessary.
My apology for the presumed shouting. I forgot that using caps would be
seen as shouting. You also read much into what I wrote that is not true,
but I can understand your anger if you saw me as shouting.
No one was giving Loren any feedback so I presented some points of
consideration. They do involve real issues in science.
>
> 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.
There are assumptions that scientists use that are consistent with
humanism. Fundamentalist do like to accuses science as being humanistic.
From the World Book CD
Later influence. Humanism had a major impact on the Reformation of
the 1500's, and on the scientific revolution and Age of Reason of the 1600's
and 1700's. Humanism's emphasis on a liberal education and the well-rounded
individual has made a permanent contribution to the modern world. Today,
some people use the term secular humanism to describe a philosophy whose
value systems depend on human rather than spiritual standards.
There are Christian humanists, who try to redirect the focus of service.
In the tension between the self and God science serves the self not God.
Science has no need for God. The cause of any action is almost always seen
as from within the system. Science is self-referencing rather than
God-referencing. Science ignores purpose for a system. Christianity does
not. Most science treats free will as a program. Christianity does not.
>
>>> 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 your projected reasoning not mine. Many scientists do support
religion. It just is not very visible in their research assumptions.
>This is so ridiculous as not even to be fallacious, for
> fallacies have to have at least a semblance of connection.
You are judging your own statement, not mine.
>
>>> 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.
How you can project this kind of reasoning into what I said only shows your
anger. My intention was to provide Loren some feedback that could be
clarified with additional discussion. What Loren says here is true.
Individual scientists will assert naturalistic or atheistic positions and
promote them. Carl Sagan was no friend of Christianity.
>
>>>
>>> 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.
No, you chose to interpret it that way. Assertion for effect is not dogma.
You are too quick to attack me because I apparently offended you. Sorry, my
objective was to illicit open discussion. Incidentally, what are the
dogmatic assumptions that you seem to see in what I have said.
Students should be given the freedom to challenge any model assumption.
Scientist build their models based on their personal worldviews just like
anyone else.
>
>>> (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?
I did not say it was. Science, of course, is a method. The scientists are
the owners of the worldviews. A field of science will present its own
worldview, which should be open to challenges including its basic
assumptions.
>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.
Scientific research is kept quite separate from faith, but their
interpretive writing is not, which is what students see and think is
science.
>
>>>
>>> 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?
The perspective I am referring to is the persons worldview for making moral
decisions not scientific research decisions. No one labels chemistry as
unhealthy. I certainly did not.
>
>>>
>>> 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?
Your still angry.
>
>>>
>>> 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.
I would not equate science and secular humanism. They have some common
assumptions that need to be changed. In particular, the assumption of
self-referencing for causes.
>>>
>>> 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,
based on its relative stories.
> which require no interpretation.
Why do you add what is not there? Your still angry.
> If we just defer to Stark, we'll know the TRUTH. Here I
> thought "I am the truth" applied only to my Lord.
Wow! I suggest that you concentrate on the true content of what is said and
not the person saying it. Your are free to attack me, but it proves only
your anger.
>>>
>>> 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?
Sarcasm accomplishes nothing in a discussion except to vent personal anger.
>
>>> 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.
Sorry, but you were not very rational. Those caps must have blown you apart.
George's comment was more appropriate and clarifying.
Jim
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 17 2000 - 10:16:10 EDT