Education Series: Lesson 04
This lesson is short, but is a critical transition from the “background” trilogy (1-3) to the “common ground” segment (5-6). It introduces the concept of a folk-science: pseudo-scientific beliefs whose primary function is to support one’s (metaphysical) worldview commitments. Folk-science has no ability to increase our knowledge of the created order – that is not its purpose. It is simply a belief system dressed in scientific vocabulary.
I can already anticipate some criticism here from my non-theists friends. I used two quotes from non-theists: Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins, to demonstrate that folk-science can also be used to justify philosophical materialsm — which many scientists consider an abuse of science (Gould comes to mind).
However, I don’t believe the quote I used from Sagan was intended to be a philosophical statement. Certainly it is interpreted that way by most evangelicals, but Sagan was much too nuanced and sophisticated to commit such a blunder. When he says, “The cosmos is all there is, was, or ever will be,” I understand this as a definition of what Cosmos means — as in, the scope of what the Cosmos is… it is everything! The Cosmos literally encompasses all of space, time, and matter. I would like to believe that Sagan merely used poetic language to express this, and did not intend to open his famous series up with a slam against theism.
Dawkins, on the other hand, is fair game as far as I am concerned. But if anybody has a quote that better illustrates my intended point than the Sagan quote, by all means share it with me.
Also be advised–after this lesson, it starts to get ugly! Most evangelicals will agree with the historic examples of Christian folk-science presented in Lesson 05, and with the egregious case of modern Christian folk-science presented in Lesson 06. But the sky will start falling when YEC, Flood Geology, Special Creation, and ID are shown to be no different than these in terms of hermeneutics, scientific integrity, and hindrance to the Gospel — which should leave viewers in an awkward position. And its hard to be charitable when dealing with this. Hopefully, the humor I use will not be taken the wrong way.
June 25th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Lots of good points. As you note in your post, though, you’ll probably want to replace the Sagan quote, especially if you want to get anywhere with NCSE. I don’t know of any off the top of my head that would make good substitutes, but Ken Miller takes several scientists to task in Finding Darwin’s God. That might be a useful source.
June 25th, 2008 at 11:40 am
It would be nice to have maybe some more graphics on this one.
Also, you have quoted now a couple of times from Calvinistic sources. While these are not in disagreement with Arminian theology, you may want to veer away from a Calvinistic bias to have broader appeal.
I’m confused about folk-science by atheists. You say that science-atheists push philosophical materialism, but then say at 2:45, that “atheistic folk science and proper laboratory science are identical.” So why does it matter?
At 4:00, you say that “it is an abuse of science, being hijacked by atheists to promote materialism.” You will need to give an example of folk-science by atheists somewhere in your series and say that it is forth-coming in this episode. If you cannot provide an example of folk-science by atheists, then I suppose your intent is to say that atheist-scientists are muddying the scientific waters by using science to promote materialism. If that is the case, I would tone that language down to something like, “Because scientific results are unaffected by philosophical materialism, some non-theist scientists feel empowered to promote their materialist agenda, which can confuse Christians who want to understand science or become researchers themselves.”
At 5:00, you start talking about the inadequacies of the Christian trainers/writers. Might you also be so bold as to throw in the word “Deceitful”?
June 25th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
I was never comfortable with the Sagan quote. I’m sure I can find a replacement.
Not sure if this segment really lends itself to graphics. But I’m open to specific suggestions.
Tom, I understand the concern about leaning too heavily upon Calvinist sources, but that is both (1) my theological background, and (2) the theological background of some of the harshest critics of mainstream science. However, I’m interested to hear from others if they also think this is a distraction.
In practice, atheistic folk-science and proper laboratory science are identical, and I give an example to explain what I mean by that (the doctor analogy). Worldview commitment shouldn’t reveal themselves when the naturalistic metholdology is respected. So it doesn’t matter as long as you are pursuing scientific truth. It only matters when folks use religiously neutral science to push for a mataphysical position (atheism).
My quote by Dawkins and Sagen are intended to be examples of scientific naturalism being hijacked by non-theist to argue agains theism (which is outside the proper bounds of science). Perhaps these missed the mark?
I like the language you use here. I will consider something like this if I reshoot this Lesson (which I will I can find a good quote to replace the Sagan quote).
As for poking creationists in the eye, don’t worry - that is coming. But my strategy is to establish common ground (Lessons 5-6) first.
June 26th, 2008 at 7:37 am
I am enjoying the series thoroughly.
I think there are a lot of evangelicals you will lose on this video. There are many people with absolutely no scientific background who will not accept “ignoring” spiritual possibilities, even for a doctor performing surgery or (from a video or two ago) finding your keys. Their expectations for what prayer and dark spiritual forces accomplish on a regular basis is very high.
I know many people who would likely respond to this video with, “Well, maybe scientists SHOULD start considering spiritual explanations!” These aren’t uncommon views, either.
The way I think of it is that even if I strongly suspect a spiritual explanation, I ignore it in my scientific methodology because science by definition relies on natural cause, even though my larger world view still keeps something else in mind.
I imagine Thomas the Skeptic Apostle investigating Jesus’ hands after the resurrection. Scientifically, can he conclude that Jesus rose from the dead, even after seeing Jesus and his scars? No, he cannot, because, scientifically, that’s called “giving up.” However, in the larger scope of his world view and decisions, he of course decided that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead. And blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe.
This of course is the nuanced difference between naturalistic methodology and philosophical materialism.
GJG, you’re moving (mental) mountains for a lot of people out there, I’m sure!
June 27th, 2008 at 6:18 am
AMW, found a great quote in FDG. Thanks for the tip!
joepinion, I’m not sure those folks will ever come around. If I don’t lose them on 04, I’ll surely lose them on 05 or 06. But I think most people understand that you approach spiritual problems with a different set of tools than you approach material problems. The trick then is to get people to understand that science is limited to the material and make the appropriate adjustments in our expectations.
I agree with your approach — always keeping an eye out for the deeper meaning. As for Thomas, I think science was the root of his skepticism. People just don’t rise from the dead. However, seeing the evidence of the risen Lord first-hand allowed him to reach accross the “resurrection gap” with a rational faith. Once that happened, the demand for a material explanation was dropped. While this is an appropriate response when coming face-to-face with God, it gets us nowhere when trying to answer scientific questions. Which is, I think, the same thing you said.
Lesson 05 is up!