Some Summer Reading: Closed Classrooms, AI, and Frankenstein

 * An email I sent to a Christian Professors Group I am part of--talking about some of recent reading I've done.

It's almost time for the new semester to start!  Who's ready?!

I hope your summer is going well.  I've been able to read a number of good books and articles.  Here are some interesting items of note:

1.  An interview from The Chronicle of Higher Education--"These Scholarly Topics Are Hotly Debated. So Why Don't Syllabi Reflect That?" (July 22, 2025).  The interview is with the authors of the working paper, "Closed Classrooms? An Analysis of College Syllabi on Contentious Issues."  The authors examined the syllabi of courses on controversial topics such as (1) racial bias in the American criminal justice system, (2) the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and (3) the ethics of abortion.  The authors are interested "in whether students are exposed to a broad spectrum of the most reputable and informed thinkers, which includes professors and, in some cases, well-regarded intellectuals and writers outside of academia."  They examined key thinkers in the above areas--often from a more left-leaning perspective--and noticed that when these thinkers were used in various classes they were very often not paired with responsible counter-voices to balance the teaching perspective.  They write:

To varying degrees, we found strong asymmetery: While some of the most important voices like Alexander's, Said's and Thomson's are routinely taught, their critics are not generally assigned along with them.  And when we flip the analysis to see how often the critics are assigned along with the canonical texts, we find that they generally are taught together.  In other words, in the compartively rare cases when these critics are assigned, they are apparently taught to widen the conversation, not cement a different orthodoxy.  That suggests a minority of professors do teach these intellectual controversies.

 

On the whole, though, it seems that professors generally insulate their students from the wider intellectual disagreement that shape these important controversies.  That is the academic norm.  This is a problem we must collectively remedy."

I took a special interest in this article since I do teach on the ethics of abortion and I do teach both sides.  I have my students read the famous Judith Jarvis Thomson essay in defense of abortion and I pair it with pro-life philosopher Francis Beckwith's article critiquing Thomson's argument.  Although in the minority, it felt good to be among the forces in higher education promoting critical thinking!

2.  A recent article over at Mind Matters (a good website I encourage you to check out!), Jeffrey Funk has a link-filled article entitled, "AI in Education: Is the System Being Gamed--or the Student?" (July 30, 2025).  Here is just one set of comments relevant to what is happening to our students: 

Using generative AI as a friend or therapist is also becoming popular across all ages. A survey of 1,060 teens aged 13 to 17 across the US ‘found that around three in four kids have used AI companions,” “with over half of surveyed teens qualifying as regular users of AI companions, meaning they log on to talk to the bots at least a few times per month.” (Futurism)

 

The results are not good. “A troubling number of ChatGPT users, both young and old, are falling into states of delusion and paranoia following extensive use of the OpenAI bot.” Perhaps they are driven by the tech’s sycophantic behavior or its penchant for being flattering, agreeable, and obsequious to users. These chats can “culminate in breaks with reality and significant real-world consequences, which include the dissolution of marriages and families, job loss, homelessness, voluntary and involuntary stays in mental health facilities,” and death. (Futurism)

 

More serious uses of large-language model (LLMs) also have their dark side. Writing articles for the Internet with them has produced what some people call the “enshittification” of the Internet or “slopaganda.” The Financial Times says: from enshittification to slop and slopaganda, many people are claiming that the internet is on the decline, and generative AI is contributing to that decline. “The last bits of fellowship and ingenuity on the web are being swept away by a tide of  so-called artificial intelligence.” Some are also worried that bad actors can use ChatGPT to produce mass postings on almost any topic and any political persuasion to foment dissent in America. (Wall Street Journal)

 

3. Lastly, I'm currently reading (re-reading, really, since I read it over 30 years ago!) Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.  I'm only about a third into it but it is fascinating to see the pride and hubris of Dr. Victor Frankenstein--a trait not unknown to some of our contemporary scientists who work in Artificial Intelligence!

So much has been done, exclaimed the soul of Frankenstein, more, far more, will I achieve: treading in the steps already marked, I will pioneer a new way, explore unknown powers, and unfold to the world the deepest mysteries of creation.

Here the quest takes him to consider the resurrection of dead bodies and immortality through science: (transhumanism, anybody?)

Life and death appeared to me ideal bounds, which I should first break through, and pour a torrent of light into our dark world.  A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me.  No father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as I should deserve theirs.  Pursuing these reflections, I thought, that if I could bestow animation upon lifeless matter, I might in process of time (although I now found it impossible) renew life where death had apparently devoted the body to corruption.

 

 These thoughts supported my spirits, while I pursued my undertaking with unremitting ardour.

What have you been reading?  Let us all know--remember to "reply all."

Teaching and the Quest for Classroom Neutrality

* A recent email I sent out to a Christian Professors Group I am part of:

Recently I was at a Starbucks doing some reading.  I read three interesting pieces that are all, in one way or another, relevant to our roles as Christians in higher education.

1. "Conservative(s) Teaching and Classroom Neutrality" by Christopher Tollefson

2.  "Can 'Fear Equity' Revive Campus Free Speech?" by Lee Jussim and Robert Maranto

3.  "The Radicalization of the American Academy" by Lee Jussim, et. al. 

Here I want to focus on the first short article by Tollefson.  He addresses the issue of the divide between those who attempt to use the classroom for progressive advocacy and, on the other hand, those who promote complete neutrality on the professor's behalf.  Tollefson asks us to consider "a third way to approach as least some difficult issues in the classroom, one that departs from the strategy of neutrality."  Tollefson gives his experience as a template.  In his medical ethics classes he will assign his own work defending the humanity of the human embryo along with argumentation against the destruction of embryos.  His students know where he stands on this controversial issue.  He also assigns readings from diverse perspectives but his students know that their professor is not "neutral" on this issue.  He speaks to the value of this pedagogy:

First, what is modeled in the classroom is not simply the presentation of arguments and critical thought, but the presentation of arguments and critical thought in defense of what is believed to be true.  And this matters.  Classroom neutrality can be important and appropriate in various ways, but it risks what neutrality-based approaches to politics risk: that it suggests to students that there is no truth, only arguments, and that their presentation and criticisim on all sides is as much an intellectual game as anything else.

 

 But that is not where we want our students to end up: we want them to argue for the sake of getting at, and defending, the truth.  And while this can be encouraged by who takes no side in the argument, it is shown by one who defends a position because, as he says, he believes it to be true.

 

 Second, what is likewise modeled and shown is that the project of defending what is believed to be true can be done in a good spirit, with goodwill, and with respect for all participants.  When this approach is successful (I am not saying that I am successful in it!) then intellectual opponents will have become as good intellectual friends as intellectual allies will be.

I have actually taken this approach in my Philosophy 101 classes.  About week 6 or 7 my students read an article I wrote (based on a public presentation I gave at GCC) on "Why Science Needs God." After reading this, the students know I believe in God and am arguing for a certain relationship between science and religion.  I have the students evaluate the paper and tell them that some of the best papers I have received on this assignment are from those who have disagreed with me.  I also tell them that there is a problem with the paper that has been pointed out by students--and that I agree with the criticism!  

I would encourage you to read Tollefson's piece and see how it might affect your classroom presentations.  Do you agree or disagree with his thoughts?  How do you (or, how could you) take Tollefson's approach in your classroom with your content?

One last thing... last semester I wrote a piece for the GCC CTLE's blog.  It looks at some of the issues from the above essays.  I tried to create the space for increased conversations by those who are ideologically and philosophically divided.  Take a look and see what you think--"Crossing Cultural Divides with 'Adversarial Collaboration'"

Crossing Cultural Divides with "Adversarial Collaboration"

 * From an educational blog: Write 6x6

As we head into the future, there are many topics that cry out for consideration within the context of higher education.  One particular urgency is how our campuses will handle the increasing challenges of the political and ideological conflicts that continue to divide Americans.  Academics are not immune from this deepening division.  A recent article in Perspectives on Psychological Science articulates some of the damage done among academics in our culturally divisive moment but it also mentions a way forward.

Cory J. Clark is the lead researcher for “Taboos and Self-Censorship Among U.S. Psychology Professors.” 

This article details the results of a 2021 study of qualitative interviews of psychology professors regarding their beliefs and values.  These professors were asked to give their assessment to ten “taboo conclusions” by describing, “How confident are you in the truth or falsity of this statement?”  A small sample of the questions include:

• “The tendency to engage in sexually coercive behavior likely evolved because it conferred some evolutionary advantages on men who engaged in such behavior.”

• “Biological sex is binary for the vast majority of people.”

• “Racial biases are not the most important drivers of higher crime rates among Black Americans relative to White Americans.”

• “Transgender identity is sometimes the product of social influence.”

The participants were also asked:

• “If the topic came up in a professional setting—for example, at a conference—how reluctant would you feel about sharing your beliefs on this topic openly?”

• “Should scholars be discouraged from testing the veracity of this statement?”

The researchers documented that “for nearly all taboo conclusions, scholars who believed the statements were true self-censored more.”  This was due to the fear of consequences; professors were concerned about (1) being attacked on social media, (2) being ostracized by peers, and (3) being stigmatized or labeled pejorative terms.

A recent Inside Higher Ed/ Hanover Research survey further documents this tendency.  The researchers state: “The feeling that it has become riskier to speak freely has led many faculty to censor themselves.  Nearly half of respondents somewhat or strongly agreed that they were refraining from extramural speech due to the situation on their own campus and/or the broader political environment. More than a third said they weren’t communicating with students in or out of class about things they previously might have.”

This tendency toward fearful self-censorship is not good for the academic environment.  It is here that Clark, et al. articulate one way forward using the concept of adversarial collaborations.  They write:

“Adversarial collaborations might reduce interpersonal conflict by turning adversaries into sparring partners who improve one another’s science.  Adversarial collaborations can also reduce the use of inflammatory modes of dispute resolution—such as straw-manning and ad hominem attacks—that contribute to a needlessly hostile scientific climate and may contribute to professors’ fears of social sanctions.”

Even on heavily contested social and cultural issues, those on divergent sides can work together and in the act of adversarial collaboration can overcome unhealthy biases. 

As we consider adversarial collaborations it is helpful to find models of this.  I was recently invited to present a talk at ASU on the topic of abortion and the personhood of the fetus.  I began my lecture with a reference to the book Civil Dialogue on Abortion by Bertha Alvarez Manninen and Jack Mulder, Jr. 

Manninen and Mulder are long-time friends who find themselves on opposite sides of one of the controversial conflicts today.  They manifest a high-level of argumentation with a simultaneous level of evident respect.  They outline four needed traits and dispositions needed for fruitful discussion:

• Humility

• Solidarity with our conversation partners

• Avoiding dismissive words and phrases

• Leading with what we are for instead of what we are against

They also list out some basic rules for dialogue when they write:

“Thus, we might say that civil discourse occurs when people of sincere conviction (a subjective condition) who are willing (also subjective) to submit their opinions to the (metaphorical) court of argument and rational discourse (this is at least more objective in the sense that we can agree on certain logical rules that can be articulated for any debate) are therefore invited to the table of conversation and not disinvited unless they refuse to make their case in such a fashion.”

Our students and the larger culture desperately need to this kind of dialogue on critical and controversial issues modeled for them.  The future of education—and our culture—depends on this!

Advice for Christian Academics from "A Grander Story"

 

A few quotations from A Grander Story: An Invitation to Christian Professors by Rick Hove and Heather Holleman...

Professor George Marsden's "The State of Evangelical Scholarship" outlines a wise path for Christian academics:

 

"For us as scholars this means that our agenda ought to be directed toward building for our community as solid a place in the pluralistic intellectual life of our civilization as is consistent with our principles.  Helping to establish the intellectual viability of our world view and pointing out the shortcomings of alternatives can be an important service to our community and an important dimension of our witness to the world.  To perform this task properly requires a delicate combination of modesty and assertivenss.  Our intellectual life must display the Christian qualities of self-criticism and generosity to others.  Richard Neuhaus puts it well when he says we should have 'reverence for those with whom we disagree.'  At the same time, we properly attempt to establish for others the attractiveness of our world view." (p. 50)

 

And then this one... 

Nathan Hatch, however, warns of a common temptation, one inevitable for Christians in a minority position within the academy:

 

"Like children long rejected, evangelical scholars are still too anxious to be accepted by their peers, too willing to move only in the directions that allow them to be 'relevant.'  [The result is that] we have been far more inclined to speak up when our Christian convictions are in tune with the assumptions of modern academic life than when they are at odds.  It is much easier, for instance, to set oneself in the vanguard of social progress than it is to defend those Christian assumptions tha the established and fashionable intellectual circles of our day regard as obscurantist and fanciful.  Yet it is this tougher mental fight that we must not avoid."  (p. 51) 

God and Truth: Science and Religion (Glendale Community College)

 

My presentation notes can be found here: The Christian-Theistic Foundations of Modern Science: Conceptual and Historical Factors

Christian Professors: Some Thoughts from "A Grander Story"

 A few thoughts on the importance of Christians in higher education.  From the book A Grander Story: An Invitation to Christian Professors.

"If you think about it, so much of what we love and cherish is downstream of the American university:

• Every child and grandchild, for generations to come, even if they don't attend college, will be shaped by our universities' contributions to culture.

• The belief systems and values of our nation flow largely from our universities.

• Almost all our civic, judicial, and business leaders are shaped in our universities.

• The greatest challenges and crises facing our nation and the world are addressed through research in our universities.

• Scholars in our universities serve as primary arbiters of what is good and true for the rest of our society.

• Professors establish the culture or 'climate' that encourages or prevents the gospel from taking root.

Other reasons could be offered as well.  It is difficult to conceive of an institution with greater potential to shape (and bless!) the world than the university.

"In Luke 6:40, Jesus remarked, 'Everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher' (emphasis mine).  Personally, we wouldn't have concluded this; we would have suggested, 'Everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teaching.'  But according to Jesus, teachers indelibly shape students.  There are two sides to this coin: If students become like their teachers, what are the ramifications of generation after generation of university students graduating without ever having met a single professor they knew to be a Christian?  Conversely, what would be the impact if every university student in America had the opportunity, at least once, to study under a Christ-following professor?  This reason alone, that our universities shape every future generation, is decisive evidence for the critical importance of the university as a mission field." (pp. 10-11)

Celebrating the Value of Free Speech at Glendale Community College

Celebrating the Value of Free Speech!

With the recent release of Dennis Prager and Adam Corrolla’s documentary No Safe Spaces, the American public has again been reminded of the dangers threatening free speech on college campuses.  Considering the examples of Berkeley, Middlebury College, and Evergreen State College, one might be forgiven for thinking that all college campuses are roiling with the desire to quench the free exchange of ideas that are deemed too controversial.  

There is, however, good news to be shared in that there are institutions that choose a different path from closing down free speech and, rather, pursue a path of reasoned discourse.  I participate at one such institution and wanted to share some of the events we sponsor which exemplify a free campus.  This exercise is useful for at least two reasons—celebration and emulation. The free exercise of speech and the open dialogue on complex cultural issues ought to be celebrated by those who long to see such things prevail.  Furthermore, by highlighting specific examples, this provides an opportunity for others to emulate and follow suit with similar types of events and opportunities.

Glendale Community College and Free Expression

Glendale Community College (AZ) in Glendale, Arizona has approximately 20,000 students and is part of the larger Maricopa County Community College District which comprises ten colleges in total. Being situated in Arizona is beneficial in that the laws of Arizona are very conducive and protective of free speech.  The Arizona Revised Statutes even have a bit of rhetorical flourish when they state:

“It is not the proper role of an institution of higher education to shield individuals from speech protected by the first amendment, including, without limitation, ideas and opinions that may be unwelcome, disagreeable or deeply offensive.”

GCC takes this admonition to heart and offers prime opportunities to engage in controversial topics in a civil manner.  Here a few examples from the past few years.

Glendale Community College broaches controversial topics every spring in their panel discussion series, “Critical Dialogues.”  In February 2018 this forum’s topic was entitled "Gender and Sexuality: Current Controversies and the Common Good" with a specific focus on the issue of Transgenderism. This was a controversial topic and it engendered (no pun intended!) a robust time of question and answer. However, at no time was there an attempt to shut down the discussion nor did the event devolve into the incivility of the “heckler’s veto.”  

Our last Critical Dialogues event examined the issue of religious freedom and civil rights in relation to the issue of gay marriage.  The 2019 Critical Dialogues panel was appropriately titled "Religious Freedom and Civil Rights: Balancing Competing Claims in the Courts and the Public Square".  In light of the Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges legalizing same-sex marriage the issues surrounding religious freedom came to the fore in a number of cases around the country.  Glendale Community College invited participants from both sides of the divide on this controversial issue.  Alessandra Soler (the Arizona Executive Director for the American Civil Liberties Union) and Jonathan Scruggs (Senior Counsel and Director of the Center for Conscience Initiatives with Alliance Defending Freedom) were our featured guests with other faculty and staff filling out the panel. The timeliness of this topic was seen in that just the previous month prior to the panel discussion, Jonathan Scruggs had argued on behalf of religious freedom and artistic free expression before the Arizona Supreme Court in the case Brush & Nib Studio v. City of Phoenix.  The relevant issues were, again, discussed in a civil manner with no one attempting to shut down the dialogue.

It was ironic that the same month that GCC was holding its Critical Dialogue panel, the Yale Law School was experiencing controversy over a similar type of speaking event. The Yale Federalist Society had invited a lawyer from Alliance Defending Freedom to come and speak about the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights CommissionSupreme Court decision.  This caused a number of student groups to call for a boycott of the event.  This did not speak well for their commitment to free speech and the free exchange of ideas.  Glendale Community College has chosen a different path in approaching controversial cultural issues—a path of civil dialogue and freedom of expression.  

The promotion of free speech is found not only in what GCC promotes but also in what it allows on the campus from outside voices.  In October 2018 the Center for Bioethical Reform (CBR) came to GCC for two days sponsoring their Genocide Awareness Project.  This consisted of huge billboards of, at times, graphic photographs of the aftermath of abortions which are thematically linked to other acknowledged instances of genocide.  Although the display was controversial to many, the administration of GCC, under the leadership of the president of the college, Dr. Teresa Leyba Ruiz, upheld the right of CBR to be on the campus.  Nor was there any attempt to stipulate an artificial “free speech zone” like other campuses have done.  Rather, the most prominent place on the campus mall was used by CBR and there were two days of peaceful interaction and education.

The Need for Vigilance

The culture of free expression and civil disagreement is healthy at Glendale Community College. This is partly a function of the laws enshrined in the Arizona statutes as well as the legal precedents handed down in defense of the Maricopa County Community College District.  For example, in a 2010 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit—Rodriquez v. Maricopa County Community College District—these powerful words are found:

“Without the right to stand against society’s most strongly-held convictions, the marketplace of ideas would decline into a boutique of the banal, as the urge to censor is greatest where debate is most disquieting and orthodoxy most entrenched.  The right to provoke, offend and shock lies at the core of the First Amendment. This is particularly so on college campuses.”  

Laws and legal precedent are necessary but not sufficient.  There is always the need for vigilance.  There must continue to be a firm commitment to freedom on the part of individuals who inhabit our institutions of higher learning.  As Alan Charles Kors and Harvey A. Silverglate remind us, “Freedom dies in the heart and will before it dies in the law.”  It is for this reason that institutions like Glendale Community College with their commitment to the free exchange of ideas ought to be celebrated and emulated.

Richard Klaus is on staff with Ratio Christi.  He also works part-time as Student Engagement Staff at Glendale Community College in the Philosophy & Religious Studies Department.  The ideas articulated in this article do not necessarily represent the views of Glendale Community College or the Maricopa County Community College District.

God & Truth VII: Philosophical and Religious Views on Immigration and Community

Glendale Community College

God & Truth VII

"Philosophical and Religious Views on

Immigration and Community"

October 22, 2019

Panelists:

Derek Ayala

"Buddhism: The Middle Path of Community and Immigration"

Richard Klaus

"The Contours of Community: Christians as Resident Aliens and National Citizens"

Peter Lupu

"What Does Faith-and Reason-Have To Do With Immigration?"

0:00-3:02-- Introductory comments by Derek Ayala

3:02--28:30-- Derek Ayala: Set up topic and presentation

28:40-47:23-- Richard Klaus presentation

47:40-1:21:30-- Peter Lupu presentation

Question & Answer:

1st Question (1:22:30): Basis of legal immigration; merit based

2nd Question (1:29:27): Biggest challenge for Christians regarding current policies; charity to other countries; mercy and compassion; balancing goods of helping other countries vs. our own

*Note: In my comments I mention Evangelical charitable giving versus giving to "culture war" institution--these comments are based on the research of David French here.

3rd Question (1:36:25): Three questions--one for each panelist

a) to Derek: Buddhist perspective on open borders and foreign aid

b) to Richard: Which perspective--Creation or Fall--is most helpful in analyzing policies

c) to Peter: Examples of specific policies to consider

4th Question: to different panelists

a) to Derek: Caste system and immigration

b) to Richard and Peter: Evangelical voting in regards to abortion and immigration

* Peter offers critique of both Buddhist and Christian views of the afterlife (2:00:10).

* Question from audience about enlightment (2:03:15).

* Peter and Richard go back-and-forth on Genesis and the notion of the "Fall" (2:11:30--2:25:00).
___________________

Some resources:

* Peter and Richard both mentioned the important essay: Two Theories of Immigration by Mark R. Amstutz.

* Here are some further resources I (Richard) put together: Resources on Immigration

Religious Freedom and Civil Rights: Balancing Competing Claims in the Courts and the Public Square--Video

Glendale Community College's annual Critical Dialogues panel discussion held on February 26, 2019

Introductory Remarks: 10:30

Peter Lupu: 18:40-38:45

Alessandra Soler: 39:00-59:05

Jonathan Scruggs: 59:30-1:17:36

Terri Desai: 1:17:55-1:38:00

Richard Klaus: 1:38:20-1:55:35

Question & Answers: Starts at 1:55:40

-Richard asks Alessandra Soler a question: 1:58:30

-Question about businesses that have nothing to with religion making religious claims; Terri Desai brings up Hobby Lobby case: 2:14:10-2:21:40

-Richard's mom asks a question and Richard brings up the issue of wedding cake as a "manifestation" of religion: 2:21:40-2:27:00

-Peter speaks to the difficulty of issues; Terri Desai speaks of Framer's of Constitution as classical liberals who believed in progress; Richard speaks to the natural law tradition of the Framer's: 2:33:55-2:38:45

-Jonathan Scruggs speaks of difficult and easy cases as well as two distinctions (1) speech vs. conduct and (2) message vs. class of people; Peter's objection of the creation of more problems and Jonathan Scruggs answer that this may create more tolerance: 2:55:00 to the end. 

God & Truth VI: Is There Meaning in the World? Religion or Secular Humanism: That Is the Question?

Glendale Community College's "God & Truth VI"

"Is There Meaning in the World? 
Religion or Secular Humanism:
That Is the Question?
October 23, 2018

My notes from my presentation: Disenchantment's Dead End: Why Secularism Fails

Here are some time stamps from the video:

Peter Lupu's opening remarks outlining some key concepts: 9:40-13:50

Dr. Kelly Burton "Religon and the Secular After Disenchantment" 14:00-36:00

Dr. Michael Valle "Deism as Middle Ground" 37:00-55:35

Peter Lupu "Is There a Dis-enchantment Problem with Secular Humanism?" 55:57-1:18:22

Richard Klaus Disenchantment's Dead End: Why Secularism Fails" 1:18:39-1:34:40

Dr. Owen Anderson "Revealed Religion and Natural Theology: The Role of General Revelation in Finding Meaning" 1:35:10-1:56:40

I have a couple of question and answers interchanges at these time stamps:

2:01:52-2:02:47   God as good and vengeful not contradictory

2:34:15-2:35:40   Issue of "how" God creates is separable from the fact that he creates

Note: I had a couple more interchanges but late in the session my microphone went out.

Previous "God & Truth" panels:

God & Truth V: God, Morality, and the Euthyphro Challenge

God & Truth IV: God and the Meaning of Life

Disenchantment's Dead End: Why Secularism Fails

* These are my notes from my presentation at Glendale Community College's "God & Truth VI: Is There Meaning in the World? Religion or Secular Humanism: That is the Question" held on October 23, 2018.

Disenchantment’s Dead End: Why Secularism Fails

Richard Klaus

October 23, 2018

Glendale Community College’s “God & Truth VI:

Is There Meaning in the World? Religion or Secular Humanism: That is the Question?”

·      Thank you to Glendale Community College for continuing to sponsor “God & Truth

1.    “Disenchantment” and Secularism

a.    Science is usually seen as the “engine” of secularism

b.    As science advances religion must retreat

2.    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)[1]

                                              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.”[2]

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).”[3]

3.    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.”[4]

--Kai Nielson

b.    Victor Reppert gives the following elements as part of naturalism:

                                              i.     “The physical level is to be understood mechanistically, such that purposive explanations must be further explained in terms of a non-purposive substratum.  This will be called the mechanism thesis.

                                            ii.     “The physical order is causally closed.  No nonphysical causes operate on the physical level.  The physical level is a comprehensive system of events that is not affected by anything that is not itself physical.  This is called the causal closure thesis.

                                          iii.     “Other states, such as mental states, (if they exist) supervene on physical states.  Given the state of the physical, there is only one way the mental, for example, can be.  This is the supervenience thesis.”[5]

4.    Naturalism’s failures

a.    Fails to account for moral realism[6]

b.    Fails to account for meaning in life[7]

c.     There are those who accept these “failures” and embrace nihilism

                                              i.     “Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly.  1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exist; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”[8]

 --William Provine (Cornell evolutionary biologist)

                                            ii.     “Darwinism thus puts the capstone on a process which since Newton’s time has driven teleology to the explanatory sidelines. In short it has made Darwinians into metaphysical Nihilists denying that there is any meaning or purpose to the universe its contents and its cosmic history. But in making Darwinians into metaphysical nihilists, the solvent algorithm [random variation acted on by natural selection] should have made them into ethical nihilists too. For intrinsic values and obligations make sense only against the background of purposes, goals, and ends which are not merely instrumental.”[9]                    

                                                                 --Tamler Sommers & Alex Rosenberg

5.    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!

6.    Two Theses regarding 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

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.”[10]

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.”[11]

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.”[12]    —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.”[13]  —Daniel Dennett

c.     “We seem to be reaching a point at which science can wrest morality from the hands of the philosophers.”[14]    —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.’”[15]   --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.”[16]

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.”[17]

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.”[18]

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.”[19]

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”[20]

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.”[21]

                                            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[22]

----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.”[23]

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.”[24]

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.”[25]

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.”[26]

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.”[27]

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.”[28]

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.”[29]

b.    Francis Beckwith and Greg Koukl in Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air describe four observations about moral facts:[30]

                                              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 three 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--------------------

17.                  Thus, ironically, the perceived engine of disenchantment—science itself—cannot be sustained by naturalism.

18.                  Rather, science itself needs God to make sense of itself!

---

     [1] “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.

     [2] Quoted in Nancy R. Pearcey and Charles B. Thaxton, The Soul of Science: Christian Faith and Natural Philosophy (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1994), 20.

     [3] 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

     [4] Quoted in Stewart Goetz and Charles Taliaferro, Naturalism (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008), 9.  James Sire’s The Universe Next Door—5^th 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. 

     [5] Victor Reppert, C. S. Lewis’s Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 2003), 52.

     [6] 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.

     [7] 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.

     [8] Quoted in Casey Luskin, “Darwin’s Poisoned Tree: Atheistic Advocacy and the Constitutionality of Teaching Evolution in Public Schools” Trinity Law Review 21.1 (Fall, 2015), 166.

     [9] Tamler Sommers and Alex Rosenberg, “Darwin’s Nihilistic Idea: Evolution and the Meaninglessness of Life” Biology and Philosophy 18(5); November, 2003, 653.

     [10] J. P. Moreland, “Scientism” in Dictionary of Christianity and Science, eds. Paul Copan, Tremper Longman III, Christopher L. Reese, and Michael G. Strauss (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2017), 621.

     [11] J. P. Moreland, “Scientism,” 621.

     [12] Quoted in J. Daryl Charles, “Blame It on My Criminal Brain: Materialism, Metaphysics, and the Human Moral Instinct” Philosophia Christi (vol. 15, no. 1, 2013), 67.

     [13] Quoted in J. Daryl Charles, “Blame It on My Criminal Brain: Materialism, Metaphysics, and the Human Moral Instinct” Philosophia Christi (vol. 15, no. 1, 2013), 68.

     [14] Quoted in J. Daryl Charles, “Blame It on My Criminal Brain: Materialism, Metaphysics, and the Human Moral Instinct” Philosophia Christi (vol. 15, no. 1, 2013), 68.

     [15] Quoted in Casey Luskin, “Darwin’s Poisoned Tree: Atheistic Advocacy and the Constitutionality of Teaching Evolution in Public Schools” Trinity Law Review 21.1 (Fall, 2015), 162.  Luskin is quoting Crick’s The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul (1988).

     [16] J. Daryl Charles, “Blame It on My Criminal Brain: Materialism, Metaphysics, and the Human Moral Instinct” Philosophia Christi (vol. 15, no. 1, 2013), 67.

     [17] J. Daryl Charles, “Blame It on My Criminal Brain: Materialism, Metaphysics, and the Human Moral Instinct” Philosophia Christi (vol. 15, no. 1, 2013), 67.

     [18] J. Daryl Charles, “Blame It on My Criminal Brain: Materialism, Metaphysics, and the Human Moral Instinct” Philosophia Christi (vol. 15, no. 1, 2013), 69.

     [19] J. P. Moreland, Scientism and Secularism (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2018), 52.

     [20] See J. P. Moreland, Scientism and Secularism (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2018), 49-51.

     [21] J. P. Moreland, Scientism and Secularism (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2018), 73.

     [22] The following list of presuppositions is drawn from J. P. Moreland’s Christianity and the Nature of Science (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1989), 108-133 and Scientism and Secularism (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2018), 57-69.

     [23] J. P. Moreland, Scientism and Secularism (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2018), 75.

     [24] Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God (Clarendon Press, 1979), 136.

     [25] Paul Davies, Are We Alone? Philosophical Implications of the Discovery of Extraterrestrial Life (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1995), 124.

     [26] J. P. Moreland, Scientism and Secularism (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2018), 141.

     [27] Quoted in J. P. Moreland, “Intelligent Design and Evolutionary Psychology as Research Programs: A Comparison of Their Most Plausible Specifications” in Intelligent Design: William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse in Dialogue (Fortress, 2007), 131.

     [28] J. P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1987), 97.

     [29] Paul Copan, “God, Naturalism, and the Foundations of Morality” in Robert Stewart (ed.), The Future of Atheism: Alister McGrath and Daniel Dennett in Dialogue (Fortress, 2008), 155

—online: http://www.paulcopan.com/articles/pdf/God-naturalism-morality.pdf.

     [30] Francis J. Beckwith and Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Planted Firmly In Mid-Air (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1998), 165-169.