Do the entities found in our scientific theories exist in the real world, or are theories simply tools used to give us a helpful but ultimately false handle on our experience of the world?
My friend and colleague Phillip Broussard at Covenant College (the undergraduate liberal-arts college of the Presbyterian Church in America, a Reformed denomination which together with the CanRC is in NAPARC) wrote a couple of papers which are relevant to our discussions here regarding the age of the earth. I encourage you to read these, and make your comments here.
He argues against what he calls a fictionalist view of scientific theories, an example of scientific antirealism, a view which suggests that there is little if any connection between the theories used in science and the created reality, and affirms the approach of critical realism, moving it forward into a Reformed Christian perspective he calls humble realism. He describes and critiques fictionalist views which show up in the creation science community and in his students, along the lines of ‘appearance of age’.
The papers are entitled “A Reformed View of Fictionalism and Antirealism in the Sciences” (2003, PDF here) and “Is Realism Viable in the Midst of Physics and Philosophy?” (2008, PDF here). These were written in the context of Broussard’s tenure review process at Covenant, and while they contain some “in-house” references (particularly in the first paper), such as to lectures by his colleagues, he brings up points which are valuable for us all to consider.
Here is a lengthy quote from pp. 27f. of the second paper, which you would need to read in its entirety to fully appreciate. It does contain some wonderful technical detail for the physicists among us, but is certainly possible to comprehend without a physics background.
“Humble Realism does not accept the tenets of antirealism, in saying that theories have no connection to reality, nor would it accept a classical realist view that the objects must be consistent with our scale chauvinistic views or that if a theory is successful then it is True. Humble Realism would first of all see that the goal of science as glorifying God and enabling us to be better stewards of His creation. In order to do that, Humble Realism would see science as attempting to discover truth about the nature of reality, but is aware that a complete understanding of even a limited part of reality is going to be beyond us. The entities and laws postulated by theories are assumed to be accurate, yet incomplete, approximations to what is present in the theory-independent world, but the mental model of those images must be informed by the problems of scale chauvinism we all struggle with. Humble Realism embraces the view of humans as limited and fallen creatures, who realize that our finitude is a gift from God, all the time acknowledging that the truth of Imago Dei has something to do with how we can be stewards of this creation, including the ability to grasp a limited understanding of God’s faithfulness in creation. Humble Realism acknowledges that past theories, although shown to be incomplete and false in some ways, can still be used as well as seeing that these theories do seem to arise from more accurate theories. Humble Realism cannot do a better job on quantifying verisimilitude than the many philosophers who have tried, but it can acknowledge that we often do distinguish between competing theories and can tell which does a better job. Humble Realism must take full ownership that the issues of confirmation cannot be fully solved, and as such can never claim absolute confidence in any theory, however, as a theory is more and more successful, we can have more confidence that it applies to reality in a limited manner. Humble Realism acknowledges that it is only because of a faithful God that one can understand some aspect of reality in a limited way and that all the knowledge we have is revelation from the one who holds all things together (Colossians 1:18) Finally, Humble Realism will hopefully allow one to take joy in what we learn about God’s creation.”
I’m looking forward to a fruitful discussion among readers of Broussard’s papers. When responding, please refer to page numbers and make sure we can tell which paper you’re referring to (first paper, 2003; second paper, 2008).
Monday, May 11, 2009
Monday, May 4, 2009
Michael Polanyi
Jonathan Vanpopta asked for information about Michael Polanyi.
Michael Polanyi was a Hungarian chemist who became a philosopher after he fled to the UK in the early 1900s. He is the father of John Polanyi, the Nobel prize winning chemist of the University of Toronto. Together with Thomas Kuhn, Michael Polanyi has been responsible for introducing into the history and philosophy of science the role of background beliefs in the natural sciences. But Polanyi is by far the more profound thinker and he is not a relativist as Thomas Kuhn has been perceived to be. Polanyi has certainly has a great deal of influence on my own thinking about science from a Christian perspective. He puts meat on the claim that presuppositions have shaped the content of scientific knowledge. A good source on Polanyi's relevance for Christian faith is:
Jitse M. van der Meer
Michael Polanyi was a Hungarian chemist who became a philosopher after he fled to the UK in the early 1900s. He is the father of John Polanyi, the Nobel prize winning chemist of the University of Toronto. Together with Thomas Kuhn, Michael Polanyi has been responsible for introducing into the history and philosophy of science the role of background beliefs in the natural sciences. But Polanyi is by far the more profound thinker and he is not a relativist as Thomas Kuhn has been perceived to be. Polanyi has certainly has a great deal of influence on my own thinking about science from a Christian perspective. He puts meat on the claim that presuppositions have shaped the content of scientific knowledge. A good source on Polanyi's relevance for Christian faith is:
- Torrance, Thomas F. Belief in Science and in Christian Life: The Relevance of Michael Polanyi's Thought for Christian Faith and Life. Edinburgh: The Handsel Press, 1980.
- Polanyi, M. Science, Faith and Society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1946.
- Polanyi, M. The Tacit Dimension. Garden City, New York: Doubleday. 1966.
- Polanyi, M. and Prosch, H. Meaning. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1975.
Jitse M. van der Meer
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Evolutionary Explanations of the Bible
Evolutionism is not only a scientific theory. Since the nineteenth century it has also developed into an all-encompassing worldview. According to this worldview all that we see and think and believe has developed from a state of great simplicity to one of ever-increasing complexity and sophistication. All of this happened, moreover, in a natural way. The evolutionary worldview knows of no transcendence, no supernature; only nature exists. Nothing has come to us from above; all that exists has its origin here below.
In the three-part series under this heading (see “Collected Papers” in the sidebar; direct link here) I look at ways the evolutionary worldview has affected the interpretation of the Bible, both the Old and the New Testament. The first instalment deals with a theory that explains the origin and development of Israel’s faith and culture in straightforward evolutionary terms (the so-called Wellhausen thesis). The second one describes attempts to explain the Old Testament religion with reference to the traditions of advanced civilizations that Israel came into contact with, such as Egypt, Babylonia, and Canaan itself. Special attention is given to the assumed influence of Babylonia. In the final instalment I turn to a Bible-critical theory that focuses on the New Testament and describes New Testament teachings and the origins of Christianity as derived from pagan traditions.
These Bible-critical schools arose in the nineteenth century. Although their conclusions have been modified since then, many of the underlying assumptions are still with us. It is therefore good to be aware not only of these theories but also of the response to them by Bible-believing scholars. Prominent among the latter was the Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck (1854-1921), a colleague of Abraham Kuyper and during the second part of his academic career a professor of dogmatology at Kuyper’s Free University. In this series I have focused on his response. As I hope will become clear, Bavinck’s “defence of the faith” against various sorts of biblical criticism is as relevant today as it was a century ago.
In the three-part series under this heading (see “Collected Papers” in the sidebar; direct link here) I look at ways the evolutionary worldview has affected the interpretation of the Bible, both the Old and the New Testament. The first instalment deals with a theory that explains the origin and development of Israel’s faith and culture in straightforward evolutionary terms (the so-called Wellhausen thesis). The second one describes attempts to explain the Old Testament religion with reference to the traditions of advanced civilizations that Israel came into contact with, such as Egypt, Babylonia, and Canaan itself. Special attention is given to the assumed influence of Babylonia. In the final instalment I turn to a Bible-critical theory that focuses on the New Testament and describes New Testament teachings and the origins of Christianity as derived from pagan traditions.
These Bible-critical schools arose in the nineteenth century. Although their conclusions have been modified since then, many of the underlying assumptions are still with us. It is therefore good to be aware not only of these theories but also of the response to them by Bible-believing scholars. Prominent among the latter was the Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck (1854-1921), a colleague of Abraham Kuyper and during the second part of his academic career a professor of dogmatology at Kuyper’s Free University. In this series I have focused on his response. As I hope will become clear, Bavinck’s “defence of the faith” against various sorts of biblical criticism is as relevant today as it was a century ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)