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.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Monday, July 19, 2010
Desiring the Kingdom: Book Review
“Preach the Gospel always; if necessary use words.” This advice, attributed to St. Francis of Assisi, is often heard today, also in our circles. It is usually quoted to remind Christians of the need to combine verbal evangelism with a truly Christian lifestyle, but it is also used in attacks on what are seen as intellectualist tendencies in the Protestant tradition. St. Francis’ words then serve to show that practice must come before doctrine, knowledge of the heart before knowledge of the mind, and discipleship before abstract teaching.In his book Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation (Baker Academic, 2009), Calvin College philosopher James K.A. Smith joins the debate in support of the second usage. His thesis is that human beings are primarily desiring creatures rather than “thinking things,” and that Christian education must therefore focus not first of all on the inculcation of ideas, but on the development of the proper desires – that is, desires that are directed to God’s Kingdom. For a review of this informative and provocative study see our “Collected Papers”; a direct link is here.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Science and Ideology: A Response
Clarion’s 29 January 2010 issue features an editorial by Dr. Van Dam, professor of Old Testament at the Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary, entitled “Science and Ideology” (v. 59, n. 3, pp. 54-56) [online here]. He suggests that in the areas of global warming and the dinosaur dating there is more pushing of ideology than science. Rick Baartman (a world-renowned physicist at TRIUMF in Vancouver, Fellow of the American Physical Society, long time member of the Surrey Canadian Reformed church, of the Brazil Mission Board, and of the board of the Geneva Society for Reformational Worldview Studies at Trinity Western University) has carefully examined the physics of global warming. Last year, he wrote a primer on the topic for Reformed Academic (17 August 2009). Given his study of the science, he identified a number of serious problems with Van Dam’s approach, and sought to have these corrected by writing a Letter to the Editor of Clarion. The letter was rejected. It is a pity that an excellent opportunity to set the record straight was denied.
And so Reformed Academic is publishing Baartman’s response, in an extended form adapted for a wider audience. It demonstrates not only significant misunderstandings by Van Dam, but also his unfortunate dependence upon minority views and the popular ideas surrounding the so-called “Climategate.” Baartman’s analysis suggests that ideology, scientific dishonesty, and data cherry-picking are more likely found among those who deny global warming than in the mainstream. The article is provided in our “Collected Papers.” (Direct links: PDF | HTML; the latter may be most convenient in terms of following the links to other sources.)
One of the reasons given for the rejection of Baartman’s original letter was that it was considered too long; it was suggested that technical points should be removed. However, when writing about science, the technical points are essential, and so we agree with Baartman that removing technical points was not a satisfactory solution.
As with other issues, we at Reformed Academic do not have any desire to promote global warming science or to simply accept what secular science has to say. Neither do we have any joy in pointing out the scientific errors of our theological and ecclesiastical leaders.
In this particular case, Baartman’s conclusion is that Van Dam’s editorial “is based partly upon a misunderstanding of the phrase ‘statistically significant,’ and partly upon dishonest information from non-expert sceptics. As well, the editorial, taking both parts together, is self-inconsistent. Moreover, it contains uncharitable allegations against the experts, and these have been found to be incorrect.” Read the paper in full for the details: PDF | HTML.
And so Reformed Academic is publishing Baartman’s response, in an extended form adapted for a wider audience. It demonstrates not only significant misunderstandings by Van Dam, but also his unfortunate dependence upon minority views and the popular ideas surrounding the so-called “Climategate.” Baartman’s analysis suggests that ideology, scientific dishonesty, and data cherry-picking are more likely found among those who deny global warming than in the mainstream. The article is provided in our “Collected Papers.” (Direct links: PDF | HTML; the latter may be most convenient in terms of following the links to other sources.)
One of the reasons given for the rejection of Baartman’s original letter was that it was considered too long; it was suggested that technical points should be removed. However, when writing about science, the technical points are essential, and so we agree with Baartman that removing technical points was not a satisfactory solution.
As with other issues, we at Reformed Academic do not have any desire to promote global warming science or to simply accept what secular science has to say. Neither do we have any joy in pointing out the scientific errors of our theological and ecclesiastical leaders.
In this particular case, Baartman’s conclusion is that Van Dam’s editorial “is based partly upon a misunderstanding of the phrase ‘statistically significant,’ and partly upon dishonest information from non-expert sceptics. As well, the editorial, taking both parts together, is self-inconsistent. Moreover, it contains uncharitable allegations against the experts, and these have been found to be incorrect.” Read the paper in full for the details: PDF | HTML.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)