Kenny

Hi, I’m just looking for some feedback at the moment. Unfortunately, I have no time to actually respond to what is posted, and will merely be a passive observer of this thread.

Bede has just posted a transcript of a talk I gave concerning whether or not science and Christianity conflict. What do you all think?

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk/boyce.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bede.org.uk/boyce.htm</a>

Keep in mind that this is an informal talk given to a group of my peers, not an academic piece. I realize that your critiques will likely be negative (which is why I’m asking you; I want to hear from those that disagree), but I am hoping to get some constructive criticism.

Any Takers?

God Bless,
Kenny

Vorkosigan

Hi Kenny...

Quite brave of you to post this here. A very well-written piece.

I do not think it was the Christian view of reality that helped sow the seeds of the scientific evolution. The Christian view of reality is incoherent, contradictory, and authoritarian, and is based on revelation rather than humble interaction with the world. Such things as existed in 17th century Christianity that were positives for science came in from the outside.

I believe there are a number of problems with the piece. First off, it is quite true to say that you enter the physics lab with ideas that came to you from outside yourself. To label these "preconceptions" or "biases" is to mislabel science, because that label implies that scientific ideas are like religious ideas, the arbitrary results of social processes. In other words, you have, by relabeling science, made into the equivalent of religion. That's wrong, I think.

Scientific ideas are formed in social networks of working scientists through processes that are familiar to you: peer review, intersubjectivity, arbitrary standardization of measurement, standardization of language, freedom of thought and expression, logic, reason, interaction with the world out there, methodological naturalism. Not one of these ideas is original to Christianity, they are all either imports into it from the outside (reason), or non-existent in it (empirical testing), or in opposition to it (freedom of thought).

It is easy to list the number of great scientists who were religious people, but it behooves us to point out that few of the great modern scientists are religious. Further, we don't remember the religious writings of Newton, Galileo, Faraday or Kelvin. Indeed, had they stuck to religion they would have been forgotten (except perhaps Newton). The widely varying religious stances of scientists show not how religion and science can get along, but how irrelevant religion is to successful understanding of the world. How useless it is.

A second reason why it is false to maintain that science deals solely with the objective whereas religion deals solely with the subjective is that religion often has objective components to it....[snipped] Just as the scientific community must "test" its theories against what nature reveals through observation, the Christian community is called to "test" what it believes about God against what God has objectively revealed about Himself.

This is really a non-point. Accounting is objective, but it is not a science. The objectivity thing is a red herring, Kenny, that you can squelch without arguing that religion is objective. Religion may pretend to objectivity, but it has not developed any methodology for making tests of god's "objective" revelations. The difference is not in the ideological stance toward the world, but in the methodologies that religion and science have developed to deal with reality.

I personally wouldn't care about science if I didn't as I'm interested in finding truth not playing games -- but, there is no way to "prove" that it is false outside of a certain faith that, ultimately, the universe makes sense and is understandable to us, and that there is a certain sense in which our minds resonate with the way the world actually is.

This widely-held view is in fact false. That's the real beauty of evolution, you know, epistemologically speaking.

In any case, I think that we need to realize that both science and theology are fallible human attempts at interpretation, either of what we observe, or what God has specially revealed about himself.

No, religion is infallible. That is the problem with religion. Revelation is nonfalsifiable, it can only be ignored or accepted.

A good piece, Kenny, and your appeal at the end was deeply moving. You should be proud. Wish I had seen you deliver it.

My own view is that science religion are fundamentally in conflict. I note that you have dealt exclusively with worldviews and left off the question of values. The conflict between science and religion takes place on two fronts. One is the relentless destruction of religious belief by scientific success. The other is values: there is a basic conflict between religious values of authoritarianism, revelation, rank and heirarchies, knowledege embodied in holy books, control of minds and bodies, race and gender discrimination, and scientific values like freedom of thought, peer review, open information, conferencing, empirical testing, and so forth. Few who cover the conflict between science and religion really consider that the two systems have fundamentally opposed values. Ultimately, the confrontation between religion and science is a confrontation between authoritarianism and democracy. The democracts will win, Kenny, and a fella as sharp as yourself really ought to consider switching sides.

Michael

Kenny

Turtonm,

Thank you very much for your positive feedback and the compliments you directed toward my piece. Thanks also for you detailed and thoughtful constructive criticism. Naturally, I disagree with most of what you say, but I appreciate you taking the time to give me feedback. Perhaps at some point in the future I will have time to actually discuss these issues with you in more detail.

God Bless,
Kenny

Vorkosigan

Perhaps a live debate by teleconference??? Too bad I live here and you there?

Michael

Kenny

Well, I was thinking in terms of over the internet, on this board, or somewhere else. Right now, I'm so busy with school, graduation, wedding plans, though, that internet debates have to be on the back burner.

A discussion in person somehow? That would be interesting. Doesn't seem very likely though. However, stanger things have happened...

God Bless,
Kenny

Vorkosigan

Wedding plans! Oh, that's right. Please post pix & a link when its over. So who is the lucky babe, anyway?

I don't want to debate this on our board; would rather debate on board of your choice, among your friends.

Michael

Vorkosigan

BTW, Kenny, have you read Merton's work on the Puritan Ethic and the origins of science? You might find it congenial to your thesis.

Michael

Faux Christian

If the 'Christian view of reality ... helped sow the seeds of the scientific evolution (turtonm)' then Christians must be evolving backwards. There are a lot of Christians nowadays that believe that "scientific evolution" is bad (I don't mean the literal evolution, just the fact that science is moving ever-forward) and that scientists simply try to sway Christian judgement with "facts" such as fossils etc.

Bede

So it is religion and not science that is authoritarian. Says who?

Science is governed by an authority that broaches no argument, that allows no dessent. She cannot be swayed by appeals to mercy or reason. Instead, like a merciless God she has condemned us all to death - her servants and her enemies. Her laws are cast in iron and we can only try to find out what they are - she did not even deign to tell us. They are often inimical to human asperations and hopes but she does not care.

However, those who follow her rules are allowed some small mercies. They can delay her judgement and make her yoke lighter for a time.

But heretics who preach a different message - to them she shows no mercy. If there is Christian Scientist who follows such a heresy, we can, like a medieval inquisitor beg him to recant and reach out to the hand of mercy the authority has offered even at this late hour. But alas, if they refuse then we can only shrug our shoulders and walk away as the executioner moves in to hand down her inevitable sentence.

Nature is a tyrant to whom we must all do homage before she kills us. Like an ancient monarch she cannot be questioned nor can she be swayed. What I would not give for an authority as merciful as the Church that gave hope, could be reformed and and was directed by those who could at least understand those they ruled over.

Yours

Bede

PS: Michael, I've got rid of the odd colours, as you saw. Who says theists don't react to criticism?

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Pantera

Aww, and I kind of liked the old colour scheme.

Guess you can't please everyone.