Thanks for your response. Some of the comments implied that I was somewhat
naive in approving science and its objectivity. I should say a little about
'where I'm coming from' to clarify the philosophical situation, especially for
those of you who are younger.
My career has spanned the period from the dominance of positivism, up to
about the late 60's, to the present dominance of relativism in philosophy. So
now I appear to be bucking the trend, by neglecting to repeat the notions that
all data are theory-laden, that everyone is a biased advocate, that knowledge is
a sequence of paradigms based on presuppositions, etc. But you must realize
that these are all new themes, representing the current Spirit of the Age. They
ain't necessarily so.
On the other hand, for those of you who did not experience the positivistic
era, I must tell you a little about it: this was a time when Marxism was the
world's most admired ideology; even preachers praised the communists for their
level of commitment. But there was heavy, oppressive, arrogant ridicule of
Christian faith among writers, journalists, and others in the mass media. They
were given moral support by famous scientists, such as Linus Pauling, Harlow
Shapley, Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, Haldane, Huxley, and John Dewey. These
men had tremendous influence over education, philosophical and political
thought. The only respected theologians were Tillich, Neibuhr and Bultmann, as
I recall. This was the era when liberalism reigned supreme. Then came the
sexual, drug, and countercultural revolutions of the late 60's. It is not a
coincidence that young-earth creationism also emerged at this time.
In the positivist era, the 'verification principle' was used to intimidate
and dismiss all kinds of religious views as metaphysical and therefore
meaningless. On the other hand, science was exalted as the only authority for
truth, because of its verifiability and objectivity.
Then the verification principle collapsed -- when it was finally realized by
everyone that the principle itself is not experimentally verifiable. Then
Thomas Kuhn wrote 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' and the pendulum
swung completely over to relativism. Now we have nothing but paradigms, and
your paradigms are as good as mine. Likewise the young-earth creationists now
say there are two views based on different presuppositions, not evidence....
What I'm trying to say is that both sides -- positivism and relativism --
are wrong. They are both worldly; one reduces personhood to matter, the other
exalts personhood to divinity. Without an understanding (or standing-under) of
the Creator, the world always goes to these extremes.
Michael Polanyi's book Personal Knowledge influenced me, as well as
Schaeffer and James Houston. As Polanyi put it, 'My purpose is to search for
the truth, and to report my findings....I'm trying to convince myself.' Truth
is both objective and subjective, but neither positive nor relative. As I am
committed to this dialogical view, I always try to fight both extremes,
whichever one seems strongest at the moment. So I'm always saying 'on the other
hand', 'neither/nor', etc.
Forgive me for the excessive length of this.
Paul Arveson, Research Physicist
73367.1236@compuserve.com arveson@oasys.dt.navy.mil
(301) 227-3831 (W) (301) 227-1914 (FAX) (301) 816-9459 (H)
Code 724, NSWC, Bethesda, MD 20084