From: Freeman, Louise Margaret (lfreeman@mbc.edu)
Date: Tue Aug 26 2003 - 14:19:19 EDT
> > >>please name some theistic science popularizers who
> > actually include
> > their theism in their works? >>
> >
> > Eddington and Sir James Jeans -- of course they were
> > a generation ago.
> > Robert Jastrow. Polkinghorne. Ian Barbour. George
> > Murphy. Steven
> > Goldberg. David Griffin. Howard Van Til. Peacock.
> > Davis Young. The list
> > is very long.
>
> But the authors you mention have written books
> primarily or exclusively in the science and religion
> area -- not as simply science popularizers, which with
> the exception of Polkinghore's Particle Play I don't
> think any you listed have. I specifically *excepted*
> books on science and religion from the comparison. My
> point was that in popularization of science qua
> science -- NOT discussion of science and religion
> issues -- that the "apparent" bias is overwhelmingly
> in one direction because of the agendas of the science
> qua popularizers (e.g., Dawkins, Sagan, et al.).
One possibility is that, for those theistic scientists who accept the
methodological/ metaphysical naturalism distinction, their "theism" is
outside the realm of their methodological naturalism, and therefore an
inappropriate topic in lectures/books/classes etc that are supposed to be
strictly about science. It is an appropriate topic for a book or lecture
on religion and science.
I am reminded of what Miller said was the reason for his writing "Finding
Darwin's God": to answer the questions students in his biology class had
about his own religious beliefs and how they could be compatible with the
scientific study of evolution. As much as I like that book, I would not
want to see it as required reading in an introductory biology class
simply because much if it is outside the realm of methodological
naturalism.
This set-up does admittedly put theistic scientists at a disadvantage...
they can react to examples of metaphysical naturalism in Dawkins'
writings, for instance, and invite students to question
the "scientificness" of them, but cannot present their own theism as
science. So, they are automatically on the defensive, with the Dawkins of
the world on one offensive front (attacking theism) and the Johnsons of
the other on the other (attacking methodological naturalism.)
So, I see a stacked decked and I welcome suggestions on how to popularize
the notion that there are theistic scientists out there. So far, the
only solutions I have come up in my own classes (I teach psychology, and
consider evolution as important in that field as in biology, BTW)are
1) define methodological naturalism and distinguish it from metaphysical
naturalism whenever I lecture about evolution, and make it clear that I
am speaking as a methodological naturalist in class. I also let my
students know that I am interested in the topic of science and religion
and am available to discuss that, formally or informally, outside of
class. (So far, no one from the Christian student group who invited
Answers in Genesis to campus last year has taken me up on it, though.)
2) try to react as strongly to inappropriate metaphysical statments from
scientists (Dawkins, Gould) etc as I do to outrageous scientific claims
from YEC's and ID. This is harder for me, though, because Dawkins and
Gould come packaged with a lot of good scientific writings that I admire
and enjoy using in my classes, while the YEC's and IDers do not.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Aug 26 2003 - 14:23:58 EDT