"Who's
Afraid of Science? Why Science Needs God!"
Deep Faith
Apologetics Conference
October 20,
2018
Richard Klaus
Description:
Science and Religion are often seen to be in conflict.
This idea is
challenged as the false idea of “scientism” is shown to be faulty.
Moreover a
true conception of science depends on non-scientific assumptions
which make
better sense in a God-based view of reality.
Introduction
·
Ephesians 6.10-12 à
Spiritual warfare
o Not
only demons and demon possession
o Warfare
in the realm of ideas
§
You were born into a war you didn’t ask to be
part of—get used to it!
§
You are going to fight or be taken captive
§
If you’re going to fight you need to learn to
fight well
·
2 Corinthians 11.3
o Target
is the mind
o Method
is deception
o Goal
is to move you away from simple, pure devotion to Jesus Christ
·
2 Corinthians 10.3-5
o destroying
speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God
·
Colossians 2.3-8
o v.
3 “in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge”
o v.
8 “overflowing with gratitude” à
worship and warfare
·
Proverbs 21.22 à
“the stronghold in which they trust”
o Example
from Star Wars (1977): tie fighters vs. Death Star
o Today’s
“stronghold” à
“scientism”
§
I’m going to teach you as adults because the
warfare is real!
§
Some of it may be “over your head” but the level
of the warfare is such that you need to step up and realize the nature of the
foe
1.
“Disenchantment” and Secularism
a.
Science is usually seen as the “engine” of
secularism
b.
As science advances religion must retreat
2.
Naturalism defined
a.
“Naturalism denies that there are any spiritual or supernatural
realities transcendent to the world or at least we have no good ground for
believing that there could be such realities… It is the view that anything that
exists is ultimately composed of physical components.”[1]
3.
Naturalism’s failures
a.
Fails to account for moral realism[2]
b.
Fails to account for meaning in life[3]
4.
My goal today: examine the alleged engine of
naturalism à
Science
a.
Proverbs 21.22 “A wise man scales the city of
the mighty and brings down the stronghold in which they trust.”
b.
Naturalism cannot account for science itself!
5.
Scientism and Science
a.
Scientism is fundamentally irrational
b.
Science rests upon philosophical commitments
which do not comport well with naturalism but do comport better with Christian
theism
6.
The “Warfare Narrative” of Science and Religion
a.
John William Draper (1811-1882): History of the Conflict Between Religion and
Science (1874)
b.
Andrew Dickson White (1832-1918): A History of the Warfare of Science with
Theology in Christendom (1896)[4]
i. “In
all modern history, interference with science in the supposed interest of
religion, no matter how conscientious such interference may have been, has
resulted in the direst evils both to religion and to science.”[5]
c.
“Today historians of science generally no longer
favor a conflict model. Colin
Russell, formerly the president of Christians in Science, criticized the
conflict model noting that, ‘Draper takes such liberty with history,
perpetuating legends as fact that he is rightly avoided today in serious
historical study. The same is
nearly as true of White, though his prominent apparatus of prolific footnotes
may create a misleading impression of meticulous scholarship’ (Russell 2000,
15).”[6]
7.
Scientism: Strong and Weak
a.
Strong scientism:
i. “Strong
scientism claims that some proposition is true and/or rational to believe if
and only if it is a well-established scientific proposition—that is, if and
only if it is a well-established scientific proposition that, in turn depends
on its having been successfully formed, tested, and used according to
appropriate scientific methodology.
There are no truths apart from scientific truths, and even if there
were, there would be no reason whatever to believe them.”[7]
b.
Weak scientism:
i. “Advocates
of weak scientism allow for truths apart from science and even grant that they
have some minimal, positive rationality status without the support of
science. But those advocates still
hold that science is the most authoritative sector of human learning. Every other intellectual activity is
inferior to science. Further,
there are virtually no limits to science.
There is no field into which scientific research cannot shed light. To the degree that some issue outside science
can be given scientific support or can be reduced to science, to that degree
the issue becomes rationally acceptable.”[8]
8.
Some examples of scientism
a.
“The great questions—‘Who are we?’ ‘Where did we
come from?’ Why are we here?’—can be answered only, if ever, in the light of scientifically based evolutionary
thought.”[9] —E. O. Wilson
b.
“A Darwinian fundamentalist is one who
recognizes that either you shun Darwinian evolution altogether, or you turn the
traditional universe upside down and you accept that mind, meaning, and purpose
are not the cause but the fairly recent effects of the mechanistic mill of
Darwinian algorithms. Many have
tried to find a compromise position [but]… [i]t cannot be done.”[10] —Daniel Dennett
c.
“We seem to be reaching a point at which science
can wrest morality from the hands of the philosophers.”[11] —Frans de Waal
d.
“’You,’ your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your
ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more
than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated
molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might
have phrased it: ‘You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.’”[12] --Francis Crick
9.
All these examples are illustrations of
metaphysical commitments masquerading as science
a.
“Seemingly at work here are distinctly
metaphysical—over against strictly physical or material—assumptions, which,
nevertheless, are touted as science.”[13]
b.
“Science writer James Barham describes this
phenomenon as ‘theory creep,’ by which bold but unsubstantiated claims are made
of a philosophical nature that nevertheless are presented as scientific fact.”[14]
c.
“[O]ne is justified, I think, in questioning
whether individuals in the hard sciences, where theories and hypotheses are
measured and tested on the basis of empirical evidence, should be making
moral-philosophical and metaethical claims. Is this really science? What is particularly questionable is to extrapolate from the
physical realm and make authoritative metaphysical pronouncements about
material and nonmaterial reality and to do so in the name of science.”[15]
10. Problems
with scientism
a.
Problems with Hard (or Strong) Scientism
i. “The
irony is that strong scientism is a philosophical statement expressing an
epistemological viewpoint about
science; it is not a
statement of science, like
‘water is H2O’ or ‘cats are mammals.’ Strong scientism is a philosophical assertion that claims
that philosophical assertions are neither true nor can be known; only
scientific assertions can be true and known.”[16]
1.
X = Only scientific assertions can be true and
known.
2.
What scientific experiments could be done to
show the truthfulness of X?
a.
None!
b.
X is a philosophical claim; not a scientific
claim
ii. Hard/Strong
Scientism is “self-referentially incoherent”[17]
b.
Problems with Weak Scientism
i. “In
sum, the first problem with weak (and strong) scientism is that it diminishes
the intellectual authority of other important fields, especially biblical
studies and theology. This is not
because the arguments are better, but simply because it is assumed that science
by definition has more plausibility and inherent authority.”[18]
ii. Science
rests up philosophical assumptions and the conclusions of science can only be
as certain as those assumptions.
11. Science
rests upon philosophical presuppositions[19]
----SCIENCE----
-----PHILOSOPICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS-----
a.
(1) The existence of the external world.
b.
(2) The orderly nature of the external world and
its knowability.
c.
(3) The uniformity of nature and induction.
d.
(4) The laws of logic, epistemology, and truth.
e.
(5) The reliability of the senses and the mind.
f.
(6) The adequacy of language to describe the
world.
g.
(7) The applicability of mathematics and the
existence of numbers.
h.
(8) The existence of values.
i. Moral
values
·
One ought to record and report data honestly.
ii. Rational
values
·
One ought to prefer a theory that is…
o simpler
o more
empirically accurate
o more
predictively successful
o has
a wider scope of explanation
iii. Aesthetic
values
·
One ought to prefer theories and equations that
are more beautiful and elegant.
12. A
closer look at a few of these philosophical presuppositions
a.
Which worldview—naturalism or Christian
theism—better makes sense of these presuppositions?
b.
My argument: these philosophical presuppositions
which are necessary for science comport (fit) better with Christian theism.
“The nature of the assumptions of
science do not prove the existence of
a God very much like the God of the Bible, but in my view, they provide reasons
for preferring theism over scientistic naturalism. The assumptions are at home in a theistic worldview; they
fit quite naturally. If God is
himself a rational being, then it stands to reason that he would create a
rational, orderly universe. If he
created us, then it naturally follows that he would give us the proper
faculties to know and appreciate the inner workings of his world by ‘thinking
his thoughts after him.’ The
existence of objective values makes far more sense if there is an objective
Lawgiver than if there is not.
“If we begin with ‘In the beginning
there was the Logos,’ then we have reasonable explanations for these
assumptions. But if we begin with
“In the beginning were the particles (or plasma, strings, etc.),’ it is hard to
see how these assumptions could have obtained.”[20]
13. Number
(2): “The orderly nature of the external world and its knowability.”
a.
Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne
“The orderliness of the universe to which I draw attention here is its
conformity to formula, to simple formulable, scientific laws. The orderliness of the universe in this
respect is a very striking fact about it.
The universe might naturally have been chaotic, but it is not—it is very
orderly.”[21]
b.
A. S. U. astrophysicist Paul Davies writes of
this foundational order with a special focus on the mathematical structure of
reality…
“There exists a deep and elegant underlying mathematical unity that links
everything together in an abstract conceptual scheme. There is thus an underlying rational order of which the fall
of an apple is but one example. We
could never get at that type of deep mathematical unity other than by using
science, and it’s an astonishing thing that we can get at it at all because it
seems to have no survival value.”[22]
c.
Christian
philosopher J. P. Moreland asks, “So, how do we explain the existence and
nature of these laws? Where did
they come from?”
“There are two major options here: (1) take them as unexplainable, brute
entities, or (2) provide a theistic explanation. For many thinkers, myself included, the
‘unexplainable-brute-entity’ option is not a good one. Since the actual brute entity might not
have existed, we naturally seek an explanation as to why the contingent entity exists instead of not existing. And the fundamental laws of nature are
contingent realities—after all, it is easy to conceive of worlds that have
different fundamental laws of nature.
So why does our world contain certain fundamental laws instead of
others.”[23]
14. Number
(5): “The reliability of the senses and the mind.”
a.
Leda Cosmides and John Tooby
“The brain is a physical system whose operation is governed solely by the
laws of chemistry and physics.
What does this mean? It
means that all of your thoughts and hopes and dreams and feelings are produced
by chemical reactions going on in your head.”[24]
b.
But if Cosmides and Tooby are correct that all
our thoughts are merely the result of chemical reactions…
i. Why
should we trust these thoughts to be true?
ii. What
is it about these chemical reactions that guarantees truth?
iii. Naturalistic
evolutionary theory states that the products of evolution are better able to
reproduce over time but there is no reason to think that this mindless process
should fit humans for the acquisition of truth.
iv. “If
mind emerged from matter without the direction of a superior Intelligence, two
problems arise immediately. First,
why should we trust the deliverances of the mind as being rational or true,
especially in the mind’s more theoretical activities? … Second, if
thinking involves having abstract entities (propositions, laws of logic, and the
like) instanced in one’s mind, then it seems to be incredibly unlikely that a
property which emerged from matter in a struggle for survival would be the sort
of thing that could have thoughts in
the first place. Why this emergent
property would be such that it could contain abstract entities would be a
mystery.”[25]
15. Number
(8): “The existence of values.”
(moral, rational, & aesthetic)
a.
Paul Copan on the problem of getting values from
valueless matter
“How do we move from a universe that originates from no prior matter into
a universe of valueless matter and energy, eventually arriving at moral values,
including human rights, human dignity, and moral obligation? It is hard to see how the naturalist
could bridge this chasm. Matter
just does not have moral properties, let alone mental ones.”[26]
b.
Francis Beckwith and Greg Koukl in Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air
describe four observations about moral facts:[27]
i. They
are not physical—they don’t have physical properties.
ii. They
are a kind of communication—a command.
This only makes sense when there are two minds involved.
iii. They
produce in us a feel of “oughtness”—we feel like we ought to do something (or
refrain from something)
iv. When
they are violated they produce in us a discomfort—a sense of guilt
c.
They argue we can explain these moral realities
in one of there ways…
i. Illusion
ii. Accident
iii. Product
of intelligence
16. Conclusion:
Flow of the argument
a.
Scientism fails
b.
Science rests upon philosophical presuppositions
c.
These philosophical presuppositions fit better
with theism than naturalism
d.
Therefore Science needs God to function
properly!
----SCIENCE----
-----PHILOSOPICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS-----
--------------------The Existence of God--------------------
[1]
Quoted in Stewart Goetz and Charles Taliaferro, Naturalism (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans, 2008), 9. James Sire’s The Universe Next Door—5th ed. (Downers Grove,
Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 2009) has a chapter—chapter four: “The Silence of
Finite Space: Naturalism”—which contains a good discussion of philosophical
naturalism.
[2]
Richard Klaus, “’What’s Your Problem?’ How Euthyphro Challenges Us All” God & Truth V (October 24,
2017)—online: http://whiterosereview.blogspot.com/2017/10/whats-your-problem-how-euthyphro.html.
[3]
Richard Klaus, “Metaphysics and the Meaning of Life: How the Kingdom of God
Changes Everything!” God & Truth IV
(October 18, 2018)—online: http://whiterosereview.blogspot.com/2016/10/metaphysics-and-meaning-of-life-how.html.
[4]
“White’s perspective drew criticism from James Joseph Walsh, who argued in The Popes and Science: The History of the
Papal Relations to Science during the Middle Ages and Down to Our Own Time (Walsh
1908) that White’s view was antihistorical.” Jonathan McLatchie “Conflict
Thesis” in Dictionary of Christianity and
Science, eds. Paul Copan, Tremper Longman III, Christopher L. Reese, and
Michael G. Strauss (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2017), 106.
