Ideology and Science

The notion that not only facts but also personal and communal beliefs contribute to scientific knowledge has become commonplace. Christians such as Dr. Cornelis Van Dam have welcomed this notion, not because they want to acknowledge the social dimension of knowledge acquisition, but because it allows them arbitrarily to deny the truth of those parts of science that they believe are threatening to them and their community of faith (see his editorials in Clarion of January 29 and February 12, 2010). If the content of scientific theories is influenced by background beliefs, they argue, then this levels the playing field between, say, naturalism and theism. They do not realize that this move is very costly from a Christian perspective. For one, truth about nature is made to depend completely on the beliefs of the community with the most power. For another, truth no longer depends on what exists objectively as created by God. This raises important questions. How can people with different belief systems work together in science? Can scientific knowledge be trusted if it is shaped and sometimes distorted by beliefs operating in the background of science (background beliefs)? Is it possible to acknowledge the role of background beliefs in science (subjectivity) and avoid turning background beliefs into the sole source of knowledge of nature (subjectivism)?

In this essay I explain why background beliefs are required for the construction of theories in science. I argue that background beliefs do not normally distort scientific knowledge because God created an objectively existing reality that resists distortion. Therefore, the background beliefs of scientists do not dictate the content of scientific knowledge. The conclusion is that people with different belief systems, including Christians, can work together in scientific research.

This essay also aims at clarifying how to discern between truth and falsehood in science. The first thing to understand is that everyone — and that includes those with a lot of education — is a lay person in all domains of knowledge except one’s own specialty. This means that everyone’s knowledge is affected by what is available in the knowledge market. Thus everyone has to learn discernment. But especially Christians have to learn to separate the chaff from the wheat. Failure to do so results in an inability to give an account of one’s faith, or worse, it results in creating confusion.

The essay can be found in our “Collected Papers”; a direct link is here. We welcome your responses.

Note added 22 May 2013: A revised version was invited and is now published as Jitse van der Meer, “Background Beliefs, Ideology, and Science”, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith v. 65, n. 2 (June 2013), pp. 87-103.

Laws of Nature and God's Word for Creation

The "laws of nature" were mentioned in Tony's post regarding the meaning of the word "evolution".  Since I have written on that in a paper entitled "Laws of Nature and God's Word for Creation" (see Sikkema 2007 under "collected papers" in the sidebar; a direct link is here), let me present a few quotes here.  I invite you to read the entire piece and give me your feedback on it.

"It is important to develop a Christian perspective or worldview on how the world 'works' and about how God relates to the creation. Without such grounding, we join in some of the fallacies plaguing today's culture, such as philosophical materialism, naturalism, and the dualisms between science and religion and between the natural and the supernatural. In this article, I will discuss what we --- both scientists and members of the general public --- mean when we speak about natural scientific laws, or laws of nature, as well as what the Bible says about God's ordinances for creation, particularly in terms of his showing covenant faithfulness toward his creation." (p. 27)

"From a Christian point of view, science would not be possible were it not for the fact that its foundation is in God's covenant faithfulness to his creation, for there can be no consistent naturalistic explanation for the regularities of the world which are explored within the natural sciences." (p. 36)

"One of the main things we've inherited in the scientific enterprise is the concept that the laws of nature, and nature itself, are mechanical. This conception, however, is not consistent with a Christian understanding of the world or of how God relates to the world. God doesn't 'simply' set up a mechanism and have that mechanism carry on over time.  That would be a world of deism, a world where God is not personally, intimately, covenantally, faithfully relating but simply has set it up in a certain way and then no longer engages it." (p. 38)