Freedom in education

Scientists and philosophers

What's the definition of a scientist? Someone who looks for a black cat in a dark room. And a philosopher? Someone who looks for a black cat in a dark room where there is no black cat.

Poor little bird!

My gorgeous little cockatiel, Mate, has not been well lately. For some reason he has been pulling out feathers from under his wing, and has managed to get an infection. After two weeks of topical cream and two different antibiotics, the infection has not gotten any better, so now he has to wear a collar to keep him from pecking at the area until it starts to heal and the feathers start to grow back. Mate tossed such a tantrum when the vet put the collar on him. I felt so sorry for him, but at the same time it was difficult not to laugh just a little bit! He's coping fairly well, though it's a bit tricky for him to climb around his cage, and he tends to fall off his perch fairly often! He needs to have the collar on for two weeks, and hopefully it won't have to be any longer than that. Poor bird.

This other photo is from a couple of weeks ago. I was spraying him with water, and he seemed to be enjoying it and wanting more water, so he ended up getting a little too drenched...

Oh dear!

Looks like I might have to rethink my entire belief system. His Noodliness, the Flying Spaghetti Monster has been spotted in Germany.

Click here.

Philosophical musing on Babylon 5

Click here.

Science and Christian Apologetics

This is a short talk I gave at a CASE Scholars Consultation on Friday 10 November, 2006. The purpose of the day was for the CASE scholars to share what we have been thinking about the links that can be made between our own disciplines and Christianity. I spoke about the opportunities and potential pitfalls of science-based apologetics. It's an issue I've been considering for awhile, though I haven't really come to any conclusions. I'd be interested in feedback from anyone who would like to offer some!

CASE SCHOLARS CONSULTATION
APOLOGETICS AND THE DISCIPLINES

SCIENCE-BASED APOLOGETICS: OPPORTUNITIES AND PITFALLS

I’m currently working on a PhD in the School of History and Philosophy of Science at UNSW. My thesis concerns relations between science and religion in 17th century England, but I’m also interested in current debates on the topic. Something I’ve been pondering for awhile is how science is used in Christian apologetics. I think science can be used in positive ways, but I also have a few reservations. I don’t have a clear position on this issue yet, so what I aiming to do here is to throw out a few ideas to see what people think.

I have sometimes wondered… If the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, what is the point of rational argument? As the apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians, where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?1

I doubt that there is a better example of the “wisdom of the world” than modern science.

Although we should be cautious about relying on worldly wisdom, the apostle Peter called us to be ready to give a reason for the hope that we have.2 Can science have a role in Christian apologetics? More specifically, what are the advantages and possible pitfalls of science-based apologetics?

I found it useful in thinking about this topic to consider the different types of apologetics, such as those mentioned in this quote:

Apologetics attempts to render the Christian faith persuasive to the contemporary individual. For unbelievers, it is belief forming; it helps to defuse attacks upon Christianity, and to establish Christianity as credible by giving intellectual support to the explanatory value of a biblical world view. For believers, it is belief sustaining; it nurtures Christian faith by calling believers to love their Lord with their minds.3

I think there are three separate roles for apologetics here:

1. Answering challenges given by those who oppose Christianity
2. Providing arguments to establish the credibility of the Christian world view
3. Supporting the beliefs of people who are already Christians.

I’m going to look at these three in reverse order.


Belief Sustaining

I think there can be a tendency for some Christians to be wary of science. After all, we’re told all the time that there is an age-old conflict between science and religion, and that science will inevitably triumph. It’s not surprising that Christians are a bit suspicious.

I could give an entire lecture on how wrong this “conflict myth” is, but I’ll just make a few quick points. The major figures in the history of science – the “fathers” of modern science – were committed believers. Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton – they were all devout Christians.

In addition, there are theological concepts that were considered vital to the development of empirical science. The idea that empirical enquiry can tell us anything about the world, the concept of laws of nature… these are tied to theological debates about the will of God and his work in Creation. For many historians, it is no coincidence that modern science arose in the West instead of the East – it was the theological concept of a God who created of his own free will in an orderly and regular manner that allowed scientific investigation of the world to take place.

How might modern science be able to support Christians in their faith? Can science help us to love the Lord our God with all our mind?

Historically, we would be in good company here. Galileo, Kepler, and Boyle – the fathers of modern science – viewed their study of the natural world as understanding God’s creation. Both Kepler and Boyle regarded themselves as “priests of nature”, expounding the book of God’s works for their fellow man. Boyle described the pursuit of natural knowledge as “philosophical worship of God”.

Psalm 19:1 – “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.” We know that God created everything – perhaps understanding his creation better will enable us to worship him more.


Belief Forming, Part 1 – Establishing Christianity as Credible

Can science prove the existence of God or any other doctrines of Christianity?

Historically, the answer was yes. Natural theology, particularly as it developed towards the end of the 17th century in England, could be seen as the attempt to use science to support religious belief.

Natural theology has gone out of fashion, particularly among Reformed Christians. However, there are people who are doing something similar today. The main example that comes to mind is Hugh Ross, the astronomer and director of the Reasons to Believe institute. Dr Ross has written a number of books which seek to establish the factual basis of the Bible using scientific discoveries.

I’m not qualified to discuss the science here, but regardless of the status of the science, I think there is a possible danger here. Do we really want to hitch theology too closely to science? The history of science shows that scientific theories are always open to revision, improvement, and even radical change. Think of the change from the Ptolemaic world system to the Copernican, or from Newtonian mechanics to Einstein’s relativity and quantum physics. What happens if we align our theology to a particular scientific theory, which is later overhauled? What will happen to our theology?

The philosopher George Santayana famously wrote that “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” I think it would be instructive at this point to look back to the past – specifically to the Galileo Affair. This event is most commonly viewed as a conflict between science and religion, but there are alternative interpretations. One is that the conflict was between two types of “science” - Aristotelianism and the new mechanism/Copernicanism. A few hundred years earlier, St Thomas Aquinas had Christianised the newly rediscovered Aristotelian natural philosophy. As Aristotelianism was so closely linked with Catholic theology, it was difficult for the Church to give it up when it was challenged. Attacks on Aristotelianism were viewed as attacks on Catholicism itself.

Galileo was aware of this point. In a comment added to his own copy of the Dialogue on the Great World Systems, he wrote:

Take note, theologians, that in your desire to make matters of faith out of propositions relating to the fixity of the sun and earth you run the risk of eventually having to condemn as heretics those who would declare the earth to stand still and the sun to change position – eventually, I say, at such a time as it might be physically or logically proved that the earth moves and the sun stands still.

- Note added by Galileo in the preliminary leaves of his copy of Dialogue on the Great World Systems, 1632

Similarly, Thomas Burnet (British cosmologist and theologian), wrote:

’Tis a dangerous thing to ingage the authority of Scripture in disputes about the Natural World, in opposition to Reason; lest Time, which brings all things to light, should discover that to be evidently false which we had made Scripture to assert.
- The Sacred Theory of the Earth, 1691

I wonder if we could be facing something similar with Darwinism today. On the one hand, if we reject it entirely, it doesn’t look good for Christianity if evidence keeps mounting for it. On the other hand, if we work too hard to align Genesis and evolution, what happens if the theory of evolution is overthrown? Even Richard Dawkins, the arch anti-Christian evolutionist, acknowledges that this is a possibility:

Darwin may be triumphant at the end of the twentieth century, but we must acknowledge the possibility that new facts may come to light which will force our successors of the twenty-first century to abandon Darwinism or modify it beyond recognition.4

I’m not sure what the solution is here – or even if there is one – I’m just tossing out a few ideas for consideration!5


Belief Forming, Part 2 – Defusing Attacks on Christianity

We come now to the third type of apologetics – defusing attacks on Christianity. It is here that I think science, but more particularly the history, philosophy and sociology of science, might be useful.

For some scientists and science writers – most notably Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett – science has replaced religion. Science is all there is, and now that we’re “grown up”, there is no need for childish superstitions. By being informed on issues relating to science, I think we can challenge the worldview of scientific materialism. It is here that the history, philosophy and sociology of science might be particularly useful.

Take the example of the Oxford scientist and theologian Alister McGrath. In his recent book, Dawkins’ God, McGrath mentions the history and philosophy of science as a factor in his changing attitude to science, which in turn enabled him to rethink his previously critical attitude to Christianity. He writes:

Issues such as the underdetermination of theory by data, radical theory change in the history of science, the difficulties in devising a ‘crucial experiment,’ and the enormously complex issues associated with determining what was the ‘best explanation’ of a given set of observations crowded in on me, muddying what I had taken to be the clear, still water of scientific truth.6

The sociology of science is something that hasn’t been used much in Christian apologetics, as far as I know, but I’m inclined to think that it could have a role. Simply put, a sociological approach treats science as a human social activity. Science is what scientists do. It is not an objective search for Truth with a capital T. We cannot simply assume that it gives us unbiased access to the facts of nature.

Christian scientists tend to shy away from sociology of science, or reject it outright, perhaps because it challenges the idea of truth. I think it is possible to use it to critique science while insulating Christianity as a different type of knowledge, but I haven’t worked that out in detail yet.7 For the moment, I think it is sufficient to suggest that the sociology of science may provide a way to knock science of the pedestal that it currently occupies in our society as the sole arbiter of truth about the natural world.

So where does this leave us? Firstly, I suggest that science is something that Christians should not shy away from, as understanding more about the world we live in might help us to appreciate God’s creative power just a little more. Secondly, I am cautious about the use of science in attempting to argue for the validity of Christianity – the existence of God, the supernatural authority of the Bible – simply because science is, by definition, open to change. Christianity isn’t, and this is where one of the fundamental differences lies. Thirdly, I think that Christians should be challenging the materialist world view of science, as well as the position of authority that science occupies in our society. The history, philosophy and sociology of science cast doubt on the view of science as an entirely rational, unbiased pursuit of truth about the natural world. For this reason, I think that these more critical approaches to science could be useful in defusing attacks on Christianity.

Finally, it is important to keep these discussions in perspective. In the light of the gospel, how important is it to determine the exact relation between scientific theories and Christianity?

In his book, The Battle for the Beginning: Creationism, Evolution and the Bible, John MacArthur writes:

The battle for a true view of the beginning is not optional. Our faith and the future of our world hang on the truth about creation.

Really? Contrast with this comment from a Sydney Anglican online discussion:

My greatest problem with Creationism is that it often seems to distract from the gospel. Massive amounts of literature are produced trying to convince people of the impossibility of evolution, or the young age of the universe. I believe a straightforward proclamation of Christ crucified using the same resources would be more effective.

I'm certain that the evolution debate is similar to the heliocentric debate of a few hundred years ago. Back then there were people who genuinely believed that the Bible taught the earth was fixed and the sun revolved about it, and to deny this would undermine Christianity. Of course it didn't.8

Notes:
1. 1 Corinthians 1:20.
2. 1 Peter 3:15.
3. Elwell, Dictionary of Evangelical Theology.
4. A Devil’s Chaplain, 2003, 81. I found this quote in Alister McGrath's Dawkins' God. McGrath points out that Dawkins does seem to think that a “core Darwinism” could be isolated which might be immune to historical erosion.
5. Yes, I know that's a cop-out, but I'm still thinking these issues through!
6. Alister McGrath, Dawkins' God, 4-5.
7. Another cop out, perhaps, but I'm still working on this! I do know of one extremely eminent historian of religion and philosophy who takes this view, but unfortunately he hasn't published anything on the topic.
8. Craig, online at Sydney Anglicans.

Sad

Belinda Emmett has lost her battle with cancer at the age of 32.

Click here.

Battle of Ideas

Asking why academic freedom is important is like asking why love is important, or why it’s important to eat when you’re hungry.

Click here for an interesting article on "Young Authoritarians" and academic freedom.

And here for the Battle of Ideas.

A scientist discovers HPS

After a month or so of intensive reading in the school science library, having exhausted the works on biology, I came across a section that I had never noticed before. It was labeled "The History and Philosophy of Science" and was heavy with dust. I had little time for this sort of stuff, tending to regard it as the uninformed criticism of the certainties and simplicities of the natural sciences by those who felt threatened by them - what Dawkins would later call "truth-heckling." Philosophy, like theology, was just pointless speculation about issues that could be solved through a few decent experiments. What was the point?

...By the time I had finished reading the somewhat meagre holdings of the school library in this field, I realized that I needed to do some very serious rethinking.

Far from being half-witted obscurantism that placed unnecessary obstacles in the relentless place of scientific advance, the history and philosophy of science asked all the right questions about the reliability and limits of scientific knowledge. And they were questions that I had not faced thus far. I was like a fundamentalist Christian who suddenly discovered that Jesus had not personally written the Apostles' Creed, or a flat-earther forced to come to terms with photographs of the planet taken from space. Issues such as the underdetermination of theory by data, radical theory change in the history of science, the difficulties in devising a "crucial experiment," and the enormously complex issues associated with determining what was the "best explanation" of a given set of observations crowded in on me, muddying what I had taken to be the clear, still water of scientific truth.

Things turned out to be rather more complicated than I had realized. My eyes had been opened, and I knew there was no going back to the simplistic take on the sciences I had once known. Like most people at that stage in their education, I had enjoyed the beauty and innocence of a childlike attitude to the sciences, and secretly longed to remain in that secure place. Indeed, I think that part of me deeply wished that I had never picked up that book, never asked those awkward questions, and never questioned the simplicities of my scientific youth. But there was no going back. I had stepped through a door, and could not escape the new world I had now entered.

Alister McGrath, Dawkins' God, pp. 4-5.

Galileo on speed?

It took Galileo 16 years to master the universe. You have one night. It seems unfair. The genius had all that time. While you have a few short hours to learn sun spots from your satellites before the dreaded astronomy exam. If Galileo had used Vivarin, maybe he could have mastered the solar system faster too.

Advert for stimulant in student newspaper, Daily Philadelphian, 6 December 1990.

Separation

The separation of state and church must be complemented by the separation of state and science, that most revent, most aggressive, and most dogmatic religious institution.

Paul Feyerabend, Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge (1975), 295.

Books I read in October 2006

1. Neil Hanson, The Dreadful Judgement: The True Story of the Great Fire of London

True story? Hmm. It's a narrative of the events of the great fire of London based on manuscripts, letters and other archival material. I'm always uneasy about these kinds of claims to "Truth". However, it was quite an entertaining read, though the description of what happened to the man suspected of starting the fire was rather gruesome.


2. Steve Fuller, Kuhn vs Popper: The Struggle for the Soul of Science.

I don't think a chapter each night before bed is the best way to read Fuller... I did enjoy the anecdotes, and I was inspired to read all of Fuller's Thomas Kuhn: A Philosophical History for Our Times - a book in which he compares Kuhn to the main character in Being There (I didn't realise how insulting that was until I saw the movie!) I guess I shouldn't have been surprised that Fuller came down on the side of Popper, though I was a little struck by his support for Popperian philosophy of science. This is the kind of book I generally need to read twice to fully grasp!

3. Alister McGrath, Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life.

I haven't read much of McGrath's work, which is perhaps surprising. After reading this book, I am certainly compelled to read more. McGrath's critique of Dawkins is gracious but direct. He takes on Dawkins on his own ground - rational argument - and I think McGrath comes out on top. I'll let you know for sure once I've read Dawkins' latest! McGrath primarily challenges Dawkins' view of religion, arguing that it is nothing like what most religious people subscribe to, and whether atheism necessarily follows from Darwinian Evolution (a resounding 'no', in case you were wondering!) I'm fascinated by this quote from Dawkins in the Times Literary Supplement:

Alister McGrath's book Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life does a fair and sophisticated job of summarising my position.

I should try to seek out the entire article - it would be interesting to read Dawkins' detailed responses to McGrath's critique. In the meantime, I can fully recommend McGrath's book - it is absolutely excellent.

Next on the reading list:

• Michael Ruse, Can A Darwinian Be A Christian?
• Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
• Patrick Dillon, The Last Revolution: 1688 and the Creation of the Modern World

This is incredible!

Click here.

What The Sea Wants, The Sea Will Have

I like it. I like it a lot.

Haunted?

One need not be a chamber to be haunted;
One need not be a house;
The brain has corridors surpassing
Material place.

— Emily Dickinson

I wonder if that explains all my very strange dreams?

Happy Reformation Day!!

From Tim Challies, the most famous Christian blogger (according to Craig):

October 31 will mark the 489th anniversary of the day that Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the church at Wittenburg. In so doing he struck a match, beginning a fire that quickly spread throughout Europe and throughout the world. Having become increasingly disillusioned with the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, and in particular the sale of indulgences, Luther wrote his Theses to try to begin the process of reform. While he was unable to bring reform to the church, he did trigger the Protestant Reformation by rediscovering the Gospel - the good news of salvation by grace through faith. The Reformation had profound influence in politics, art, literature and theology - while it was at its heart a Christian movement, it impacted all areas of society. That seemingly insignificant act is, in reality, one of the defining points of history. It is a shame that the day has largely been forgotten in favor of what is now the year's most popular day, Halloween (Halloween is, after all, one of the few holidays that our society can celebrate without shame and without feeling politically incorrect).

An interesting article on Halloween.

Wikiproblems?

Academics are divided on the value of Wikipedia.

Click here.

Oh.

I've been quite enjoying P!nk's latest single, "U & ur hand". I must have heard it about 10 times, mostly at the gym, before I actually figured out what the title was referring to.

Hmm.

Unintelligent Design?

Robyn Williams is speaking at UNSW tomorrow night. Intelligent Design is described as "wilfully ignorant." From what is quoted below, from the UNSW Faculty of Science website, does anyone think Robyn Williams has a good understanding of Christian theology of creation? Or is he perhaps wilfully ignorant of what he is trying to refute? And that subtitle - "Why God isn't as smart as she thinks she is" - just sounds like an attempt to be controversial without having to actually make an argument...

Intelligent Design has found its way into the headlines, has been spruiked by Dr Brendan Nelson and is now trying to slink into our schools. So where did this wilfully ignorant sibling of creationism and its anti-scientific arguments spring from? And why is it refusing to go away?

ABC science broadcaster, Robyn Williams has taken on the monster of creationism posing as science in his new book, Unintelligent Design.

Described as a "witty and wicked" debunking of Intelligent Design, he argues that if God really created the universe she made a hash of it. Why, for instance, do female koalas have a downward-opening pouch? And why are humans plagued by sinus blockages, piles, bad breath, farting and a useless appendix?

Robyn will speak about his new book and take questions at UNSW from 6pm, Thursday 26 October. He also will be signing copies of his book.

Robyn Williams presents science programs on ABC radio and television. A fellow of the Australian Academy of Science, he was a visiting fellow at Balliol College, Oxford, and is now visiting professor in the Faculty of Science at UNSW.

Venue:
Law Building, main lecture theatre, Room G04 (map reference, F8)

Nothing new under the sun

I don't think I've ever seen this picture before, but it's quite cool. It's graffiti, dating from the 2nd century AD, making fun of someone called Alexamenos for worshipping the crucified Jesus.

See Ben's post here for more.