> From: dfsiemensjr@juno.com
> Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 13:46:09 -0600
> To: stark2301@voyager.net
> Cc: dfsiemensjr@juno.com, asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: Atheistic portrayal of science in popular culture.
>
> Jim,
>
> I'm sorry to have misinterpreted your response to the students'
> statements. However, IMO I dealt with the implications of your
> statements. I was not angry, merely analytical, for I both studied and
> taught logic for many years.
>
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 10:13:52 -0400 James Stark <stark2301@voyager.net>
> answers to Dave's comments and Dave responds:
>> No one was giving Loren any feedback so I presented some points of
>> consideration. They do involve real issues in science.
>
> Now I understand your purpose, but I still have problems with some of the
> means.
>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:56:59 -0400 James W Stark
>> <stark2301@voyager.net>
>>> writes:
>>>>
>>
>> There are assumptions that scientists use that are consistent with
>> humanism. Fundamentalist do like to accuses science as being
>> humanistic.
>>
> So? I agree with secular humanists that human beings should act
> rationally and that science is the best way to understand the material
> universe. Can that make me a secular humanist? True, fundamentalists love
> to abuse science as humanistic and atheistic, but that is because they
> have adopted a deistic view of nature and the necessity of gaps for God
> to act. They simply don't understand the traditional theistic view and
> consequently misinterpret both theology and science.
To my understanding deists show no concern for a God of the gaps.
The World Book CD states for deism:
It embraces the concept of God, however, in the limited sense of a
creator, or first cause, of the physical and moral laws of the
universe. Deists compare God's act of creation to that of a watchmaker
who builds a watch, sets it in motion, and then refuses to intervene in
its actions.
I see fundamentalists as theists.
>
>> From the World Book CD
>> Later influence. Humanism had a major impact on the Reformation of the
1500's, and on the scientific revolution and Age of Reason of the 1600's and
1700's. Humanism's emphasis on a liberal education and the well-rounded
individual has made a permanent contribution to the modern world. Today,
some people use the term secular humanism to describe a philosophy whose
value systems depend on human rather than spiritual standards.
>>
>> There are Christian humanists, who try to redirect the focus of service.
>
> True, but I think you used "humanist" as "secular humanist," which is its
> most common sense when unqualified.
I agree.
> The broader discussion, unfortunately, bypasses the emphasis of the early
humanists on the study of the ancient texts and their denigration of the
medieval. One consequence of this is that they neglected the brilliant
logical works of the preceding period and misinterpreted Aristotle, so that
what passes for Aristotelian logic today is pathetic. I mention this to
illustrate
> that, whatever is said, more may be added. Then, when the broad scope is
> convered, one can add the individual idiosyncrasies.
Interesting comment about Aristotelian logic. Can you briefly say why or
state a reference that would show why?
>>
>> In the tension between the self and God science serves the self not
>> God.
>
> Huh? Are the missionary doctors serving only themselves by their science?
> I have always thought that human beings could use scientific discoveries
> and the technology built on them either in the service of God or to do
> evil. Have I been mistaken all these years?
>
>> Science has no need for God. The cause of any action is almost always seen
>> as from within the system. Science is self-referencing rather than
God-referencing. Science ignores purpose for a system. Christianity does
>> not. Most science treats free will as a program. Christianity does not.
>
> That's right, but because "miracle" cannot be entertained as an empirical
> category in an investigation. Of course it neglects purpose, for that
> also is not an empirical category. A hospital is a hospital, whether
> built to serve the sick or to exalt the name of the donor. Science is a
> limited system asking _how_ things work, and "free will" does not deal
> with something that can be empirically demonstrated or negated. All that
> is claimed at base is that science is neither religion nor philosophy.
> One must not confuse scientism with science, though many do.
I concur. This is valid justification of science as a method or its actual
research work and the formation of models. However, the books that
scientists write are not research reports that confine interpretations to
model limitations. Those books do embrace their personal worldviews. They do
not fairly separate scientific fact from authoritative fact based on a
presumed set of model limitations. This is what students see more so than
the technical reports. The worldviews get presented to them as science.
>
>>>
>>
>> This is your projected reasoning not mine. Many scientists do support
>> religion. It just is not very visible in their research assumptions.
>>
> How does one's research change by including religious assumptions?
This depends on the research project. See my note to SteamDoc yesterday.
I believe that free will can be included in many research projects by just
admitting possible causes beyond the system. It would allow a more realistic
interpretation. We need to include the concept of agency in scientific
models. The scientist is the designing agent for the model.
> Perhaps the choice of a problem to study will be affected. I think of the
> study on making velvet beans suitable for food by removing the
> dopamine-producing component. However, I doubt that one can parlay
> anything like that into a dissertation topic, unless it involves the
> genes involved in the natural synthesis--if that isn't already known. And
> the benefit is physical, not spiritual, though the study springs from
> Christian concern.
>>
>> No, you chose to interpret it that way. Assertion for effect is not dogma.
>> You are too quick to attack me because I apparently offended you. Sorry, my
>> objective was to illicit open discussion.
>
> But even if one is playing devil's advocate, qualifications are relevant.
> If you intended them, I did not find them in your statement.
Alas, I confess that weakness in communications. I also see it in many of
the dialogues that occur in this forum. We invariably write from our own
intentions. What we state seems clear because of our natural
self-referencing. We do not know the audience well enough to estimate the
reading based on their worldviews. It takes time and several exchanges to
become tuned into each others intentions. Perhaps this is why some forums
set ground rules and control what is said. Should ASA do this for its
forum?
>>
>> Students should be given the freedom to challenge any model assumption.
>> Scientist build their models based on their personal worldviews just like
>> anyone else.
>
> But there is a vast gulf between the models and the worldviews.
Indeed there is! This is an educational problem. Authors need to make
their worldviews more visible to the reader so that they will be unable use
science to push their pet worldviews.
>I do not see how my worldview changed when I studied chemistry from when I
studied English or went to church.
This is true for me also. However, I did not like it when the instructors or
professors manipulated science to promote their personal worldviews.
Gullible students will absorb that distortion as scientific fact. You got
put down if you raised the wrong questions.
>Further, if I challenge such fundamental parts of models as atoms, orbitals and
valence, I won't be doing chemistry--unless I have solid data. I understand
that valence is not as simple as what I was taught many years ago. Cu2S
isn't exactly, but that comes from more careful empirical measurement, not
somebody not liking the model. Of course, a number of individuals have
challenged Einstein's model, beginning with Whitehead. They have all been
shot down by the
> data, unless there is one out there that happens to duplicate Einstein's
> predictions. I think, as an analogy, of the "particle"-wave theories that
> Schrodinger proved equivalent.
This pattern of periodic change needs to be made more visible to the
student. This would require the discussion of changing worldviews in
science classes.
>>
>>>>> 1) North-American society today equates "religious neutrality" with the
>>>>> complete absence of talk about God --- functional agnosticism or
functional atheism. So when people today attempt to talk about science
>>>>> and the results of science in a "religiously neutral" way, they believe
>>>>> that, in order to do so, they must make no mention of God at all.
>>>> NO WORLDVIEW IS RELIGIOUSLY NEUTRAL. ITS BASIC ASSUMPTIONS WILL REVEAL
THAT RELIGOUS BASE.
>>>
>>> Since when is science a worldview?
>> I did not say it was. Science, of course, is a method. The scientists are
>> the owners of the worldviews. A field of science will present its own
>> worldview, which should be open to challenges including its basic
>> assumptions. Scientific research is kept quite separate from faith, but their
>> interpretive writing is not, which is what students see and think is science.
>
> Do you see the confusion? The students talked about the presentation of
> scientific results. You jumped to worldview.
Yes. Interpreting scientific results is ambiguous in a classroom. I doubt
that the students see actual scientific reports. They get the interpretation
of it which usually includes someone's worldview.
>In your latest response, you claim that "science will present its own worldview
. . ." No scientific discipline does, but practicing scientists have various
worldviews, and the philosophically illiterate proclam them as scientific.
The word science can imply a method or a body of knowledge. That body of
knowledge in a given field of science does embrace a worldview. To see it
clearly one has to examine the basic assumptions that are used for
interpretations.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) People confuse methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism.
>>>> NEITHER IS A HEALTHY PERSPECTIVE
>>>
>>> If methodological naturalism is unhealthy, how can chemistry be
>>> practiced? Where, in the chemical equations, does miracle enter?
>>
>> The perspective I am referring to is the persons worldview for making moral
>> decisions not scientific research decisions. No one labels chemistry as
>> unhealthy. I certainly did not.
>>>
> Again the confusion, for methodological naturalism is not a worldview. It
> merely indicates where one looks for scientific answers and the kind of
> questions which may be addressed scientifically. As for moral decisions,
> the most I can get from science is a description of the consequences of
> certain empirical actions. These may help clarify the moral situation.
> But they cannot produce the moral decision.
Confusion occurs in reading as well as writing. I agree that methodological
naturalism is not a worldview. But a worldview that embraces only naturalism
for a way of life is unhealthy. Scientists are trying to provide answers for
living that go well beyond naturalism. Some scientists see all of religious
experience as fair game for "scientific research".
>
>>
>> Sorry, but you were not very rational. Those caps must have blown
>> you apart. George's comment was more appropriate and clarifying.
>>
>> Jim
>>
> More could be said, but I end only with the note that George merely noted
> a definition. He did not deal with the tacit implications in what you
> wrote.
> Dave
Tacit implications can not always be teased out with logic. The conveyance
of meaning is not always pure logic. Continued open and honest dialogue is
the best tool.
Jim
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 18 2000 - 16:35:38 EDT