Wayne wrote:
>>
> No matter what I do, I will have underlining
> assumptions that will seep into my writing.
> It seems rather unreasonable to expect me
> to write a first chapter of disclaimers about
> by fundamental world view, etc.
Jim replies:
I think a disclaimer chapter would be unsatisfactory
to both the writer and reader. Just add clarifying
sentences as the topic comes up. Separate fact
from personal interpretations. i.e. separate scientific
fact from authoritative fact. Identify the source of
the authoritative fact. You would not have to provide
your full worldview --just the relevant beliefs or
values.
>>
It would depend on what you actually mean here.
Like a sermon on "forgiveness", it never sticks,
but Strunk and White write, in "Elements of style"
"1. Place yourself in the background.
Write in a way that draws he reader's attention
to the sense and substance of the writing, rather than to
the mood and temper of the author. If the writing is
solid and good, the mood and temper of the writer will
eventually be revealed, and not at the expense of the
work. Therefore, the first piece of advice is this: to
achieve style, begin by affecting none --- that is, place
yourself in the background. ......
....
17. Do not inject opinion.
Unless there is good reason for its being there, do
not inject opinion into a piece of writing. We all have
opinions about almost everything, and the temptation
to toss them in is great. To air one's views gratuitously,
however, is to imply that the demand for them is brisk,
which may not be the case, and which, in any event,
may not be relevant to the discussion. Opinions scat-
tered indiscriminately about leave the mark of egotism
on a work. Similarly, to air one's views at an improper
time may be in bad taste. If you have received a letter
inviting you to speak at the dedication of a new cat
hospital, and ou hate cats, our reply, declining the in-
vitation, does not necessarily have to cover the full
range of your emotions. You must make it clear that
you will not attend, but you do not have to let fly at
cats. The writer of the letter asked a civil question; at-
tack cats, then, only if you can do so with good humor,
good taste, and in such a way that your answer will be
courteous as well as responsive. Since you are out of
sympathy with cats, you may quite properly give this as
a reason for not appearing at the dedicatory ceremonies
of a cat hospital. But bear in mind that your opinion of
cats was not sought, only your services as a speaker. Try
to keep things straight." [Strunk and White "The Elements
of Style", 3rd ed. MacMillan Publishing Co. 1979. p. 70
and p 80.]
Yes, I would try to be careful, but the main point is
honesty on the part of the writer. If a writer presents
a distorted portrayal of scientific evidence to promote
his/her views, his/her work will loses credibility. As
Glenn Morton has constantly griped, it seems like there
are plenty of Christian apologists that could also be
accused of "distorting the evidence" to push their view.
Wayne:
> Even if I did, could I really be sure that I
> even understand clearly my own world view?
Jim:
This surprises me, perhaps because I have been
polishing my own worldview for quite awhile. It
does change over time depending on the conflicts
I run into. Don't you think most writers know
their personal worldviews?
I *always* know what my motives are and they are
perfectly rational. Its just that my logic gets
in the way sometimes. <grin>
Wayne:
> .... It is very very difficult for a writer
to be his/her own editor, and I suspect it would be
even more difficult for a thinker to critique his/her
own thinking.
Jim:
I have to set my writing aside for awhile to do a better
job of editing. Writing in these forums is a real
challenge to get my thoughts down in a clear manner to
the reader.
>>
That is the well known strategy, but...... I stand
with my original point. Writers cannot be their own
editors, likewise philosophers cannot critique their own
philosophy. How much less, the scientist who is
saying only *he/she* knows how to do philosophy right.
When such scientists dabble in philosophy,
they usually think it is easy. Being a scientist,
that concerns me.
>> Yes, working in the field of biology,
I do accept evolution (or in some
parlance: evilution) as a working
hypothesis. I accept it because it works
(compared to other ideas currently available).
The place where faith comes in for me is that
I still believe that God was involved. However,
that is just it, "faith". If I begin to import
my "faith" into my science, then I am corrupting
observation evidence (i.e., something that I can
lay on the table and your folk and my folk can
examine it) with my one speculations.
It is true for many scientists that their
faith can be readily separated during actual
research. However, when they write a book that
is being interpreted to the public, worldviews
of the reader and writer become relevant.
Evolution is a good working hypothesis.
Interpreting it to the public has many
possible slants.
>>
But now this seems like what the original post was
about..... I insert them for review
(compliments of Haarsma's students)
slant 1:
-------------------------------------------
1) North-American society today equates
"religious neutrality" with the
complete absence of talk about God ---
functional agnosticism or functional atheism.
--------------------------------------------
Slant 2:
--------------------------------------------
2) People [including scientists, WKD] confuse
methodological naturalism with philosophical
naturalism.
--------------------------------------------
Slant 3:
--------------------------------------------
3) The methodology of science is good for seeking
truth at one level, the physical level. It is
does not give much insight into truths at other
levels, such as the spiritual level. When looking
at nature, everyone --- scientists and non-scientists
alike --- ordinarily reads spiritual meaning into it,
especially issues such as the beginning and end of the
universe, the beginning of human life, the functioning
of the brain, etc. When non-scientists see scientists
treat these issues with the methodology of science
(emphasizing only truths at the physical level), they
wonder if they were _wrong_ to think about them
spiritually. They wonder if naturalistic/atheistic
thinking is "all that science allows."
----------------------------------------------
In other words, scientists who get a little to big
for their breetches think their ability to do good
science grants them immediate qualifications to
dabble in philosophy, and to ridicule philosophers
to boot.
Slant 4:
-----------------------------------------------
4) Every person has a desire to be "independent
of God." When people see science giving us greater
knowledge and power, they are tempted to adopt "the
progress of science" into their desire for independence
from God
------------------------------------------------
Pride and arrogance are the human condition, me included.
Slant 5a:
-------------------------------------------------
5a) Whenever people believe a theological or
spiritual premise (for example, the premise that "God
created human beings"), they almost always attach some
assumptions about mechanism (e.g. they have in mind
some hypothesis about _how_ God created human beings).
----------------------------------------------------
Yours truly, having been trained as a physicist and
a chemist, now suffering the biologist to endure his
corrupted mind set, suffers severe pangs of "where is
the beef (aka mechanism)?" every time theology and
spirituality come up in a discussion.
Slant 5b
----------------------------------------------------
If and when the findings of science disagree with the
_mechanism_ that they pictured, they interpret this
as science attacking their _theological_ belief.
---------------------------------------------------
They lied, them dang hornswagglers! Down with God!
Consequence: Slant 6:
---------------------------------------------
6) Because of attitudes within the church,
many scientists who are Christian may be
discouraged from writing books and speaking
publicly on these issues -- which leaves
the voice of naturalistic/atheistic
interpreters of science mostly unchallenged.
---------------------------------------------
So although you were arguing with Loren Haarsma,
it seems actually like you agree with him.
I will add to point 6 that I think we get it from both sides.
The church does their share to shun the scientist
both because of different needs, and different
views. At the same time, we are also unprepared
to confront the most vocal atheists because we lack
the input of alternative (Christian) views. All
through my education almost to the end of my PhD,
I felt like I was the only Christian
who saw at least some connection between science
and religion. *All* the other Christians I knew
were YEC. It would have been nice to have known
the views at ASA because I would have had a much
better foundation of ideas than the sad ones I
tried to come up with.
Wayne wrote:
>> In this respect, atheists who import
their views into their work are committing a violation
of this rule, but let it not be from my pen that I
change the fundamental mandate of science (laying
the articles on the table) into another political rally.
Jim:
Do you see me as challenging that mandate? Is your
loyalty to a tradition set by past scientist in a
particular field of study? Or is it to the truth of
what that tradition ought to become? I give my loyalty
to the truth.
>>
I think you didn't catch my point. Atheist may abuse
their privilege by interjecting their opinion into a work
(breaking rule 17 of Strunk and White, and breaking the
rule of scientific discourse), but that does not make
it right for me (as a Christian) to write works that
abuse *my* privilege as a author by committing the same
deed.
Truth, in the parlance of science, is what can be layed
on the table. These truths can be examined by everyone,
and the interpretation debated until the matter is
resolved. Miracles are not that way. Life, whether
born by the product of chance, or divine providence,
is in either case a true miracle. However, God has not
the narrow arrogance of the human, and does not see any
need to constantly place an "intellectual property" stamp
on everything God created. Rarely are we punished
when we don't acknowledge or thank God either. So
we have no stamps, we have no lightning
bolts flying around..... what evidence do you want to
lay on the table?
Jim:
> Evolution can be expanded to embrace several levels
> of agency.
Everyone in ID *says* this, but every time I ask for
clarification, I get back the same answer. Science
asks for mechanisms and models (see Haarsma's "slant 5a").
The predictive aspect of science requires that. In that
sense, the students in Haarsma's class do not quite
graps the problem from the view point of a scientist
completely. It is a valid criticism, but science should
not be used to resolve issues of faith, it should be used
for discerning and interpreting facts. Facts are simply
not faith.
Nevertheless, a book on science *should* be cautious
about importing issues of "faith" into its pages.
Jim:
> For research work much of science requires a
> deterministic model which would have to treat
> agency and free will as programs. Why deny their
> existence?
> At a higher level of evolution free will
> ruptures that determinacy. Social actions do
> involve non-deterministic free will. Yet,
> social scientists still treat that free will
> as a program. Such research work seems to be
> very misleading to the public. However, Once
> free will is acted upon, an intention becomes
> a cause "after the fact". A deterministic model
> after any action could still be used.
> The role of agency would take on a new aspect
> at the quantum level of atoms and particles.
> It might show how the part can be a window to
> the whole.
Nobody denies the existence of free will completely,
not even Dennett. Most people accept some degree
of determinism. Beyond that, I'm sorry, but you've
completely lost me.
Wayne wrote:
> .... *I* believe
> in God, but suppose that a student in
> my class believes in Buddha. That student
> will complain that I am inserting
> my "God" into their world view of
> "Buddha". Likewise, if the student does
> not believe in God, is it any better for me
> to pound the God thing into their brain,
> or flunk them if the say they don't believe?
Jim responded:
> This depends on how you say it. It is an
> opportunity to share and help the
> student to polish h/h worldview.
> I believe that we are called to witness
> wherever we can, but not in any forceful way.
> We must not try to indoctrinate. We share and
> let the student intentionally change h/h self.
>>
Thanks for the exchange.
By Grace alone do we proceed,
Wayne
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 21 2000 - 12:04:30 EDT