Kirsty Birkett on Naturalism
10 comments | Permalink
Posted by Andy Naselli
The third essay in Christ on Campus Initiative’s series was just published this evening: Kirsty Birkett’s "I Believe in Nature: An Exploration of Naturalism and the Biblical Worldview."
The CCI essays are (1) by evangelical scholars, (2) geared for campus evangelism, and (3) edited by D. A. Carson. (And I've had the privilege of copy-editing them, so if you find any typos, let me know!)
Here's the outline for Birkett's essay:
The third essay in Christ on Campus Initiative’s series was just published this evening: Kirsty Birkett’s "I Believe in Nature: An Exploration of Naturalism and the Biblical Worldview."The CCI essays are (1) by evangelical scholars, (2) geared for campus evangelism, and (3) edited by D. A. Carson. (And I've had the privilege of copy-editing them, so if you find any typos, let me know!)
Here's the outline for Birkett's essay:
Part 1: HistoryRelated: Cf. JT's posts on the previous two essays:Part 2: What Is Science?
- Francis Bacon
- The Royal Society
- William Perkins
- William Paley
- Charles Darwin
- Thomas Huxley
- Summary
- Science and Naturalism Today
Part 3: The Bible and the Natural World
- The Method of Science
- One Response: Falsifiability
- The Problem of Empirical Equivalence
- Science and Community
- Summary
Part 4: The Problems of Naturalism
- It Is God’s World
- God Is Not Capricious
- God’s Reason for Creation
- Does the Bible Encourage Knowledge?
- A Marred World?
- The Limits of Natural Knowledge
- Putting It All Together
Conclusion
- The Problem of Power
- The Problem of Morality
- Explaining Humans
Annotated Bibliography
posted by Andy Naselli at Saturday, August 23, 2008
10 Comments:
This post has been removed by the author.
Thanks Andy. I highly recommend Kirsty's writings. She's written a number of very good books on feminism, science... for Matthias Media and is now in England at Oak Hill.
Very good explanation of science and naturalistic studies. I loved the discussion on Falsifiability. However, I’m afraid that to an untrained scientific community she has given them a crutch to hold onto the idea that evolution is wrong. Sure there is always refinement of models, new discoveries, or different explanations, but for evolution to be proven wrong is unrealistic. Her examples of paradigm shifts have always been that newer data did not fit into the current model. But with evolution you have +100 years of exponentially growing data that fits the general theory of evolution. To believe otherwise is somewhat unrealistic.
I disagree with her view of NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria) in that Christianity believes that the supernatural (God) has on occasion entered into this physical world, and therefore is subject to scientific investigation. In a very real sense the supernatural (God) became physical (Jesus). For instance, if the tomb of Christ was found, and contained some blood stains, and analysis showed that there was only one set of chromosomes (or something like that). Christians the world over would say, “Science has proved the existence of the supernatural!” Because science has yet to show any evidence of the supernatural because it only studies nature, it is convent to say that science can’t investigate the supernatural.
She mentions the “science against religion” lobby, but what about the “religion against science” lobby. I think as a church we have become uncomfortable with science and have slowly moved away from our influence in science. In a sense we are becoming a backwards religion. How comfortable or knowledgeable is the church with regards to the data for evolution, one of the most influential theories there is?
Regarding the Cosmological argument, I’ve always viewed it as the greatest “God of the gaps” theory. Modern physics says that knowledge of what happened before the big bang is unknowable; therefore by claiming God is the initial cause, we therefore have a fool proof theory. We will no longer be embarrassed about the evolutionary explanation of the flagellum, the eye, the clotting pathway, etc. We have an unsinkable God of the gaps theory in the cosmological argument.
I also didn’t like the moral argument, and her view that purely naturalistic morality would lead to a complete survival of the fittest, where people are killing each other, as recently popularized by “Expelled”. I believe she’s missing that evolutionary theory is completely compatible with evolution of altruism. Some researchers are even looking into an evolutionary bases for religious beliefs.
I don’t want to sound like a broken record, but her argument that naturalism fails to explain the many differences between humans and other animals falls again under the “God of the gaps”. This argument maybe has a couple decades, since neurobiology is still a relatively new field, but to say science will not be able to explain why humans are different than other animals is I believe asking to be embarrassed again.
Finally in her conclusion it comes across that we should not accept naturalism, because it doesn’t feel right, it leaves unanswered questions, it makes us feel unimportant. I think this is a dangerous stance to take. I think this is why so many people are drawn to religion. A feeling of unimportance is a pretty bitter pill to swallow. I’d advise people to look up “Hubble deep field” on youtube, and you’ll get a taste of how small you really are. And what better way to combat the feeling of insignificance than to drink the cup of religion and ignore the data.
Sorry if I sound bitter, I’m having an agnostic feeling day :(
Mark,
You state, I’m afraid that to an untrained scientific community she has given them a crutch to hold onto the idea that evolution is wrong. What constitutes a person a member of what you call an untrained scientific community? Also, what is the crutch that you're afraid Kirsty Birkett has given them?
A. B. Caneday,
What I mean by an "untrained scientific community" are a group of people not trained scientifically. More specifically individuals not working and understanding the details in which Kirsty explained in such wonderful detail. She touched on how theories are constantly undergoing refinement, how science rarely calls something an absolute, how there is a delicate balance of when sufficient evidence has come in to change ones models. These things from the outside makes science look like a John Kerry type of field, flip-flopping and changing in the wind. But it is exactly this refinement, this self-correcting aspect of science that makes it so robust. I have dealt with too many creationist (I’m also including here IDers) who take this as science doesn’t know anything for sure, therefore my unscientific beliefs (creationism) are just as rational as theirs are, for there could always be a “paradigm” change. This is the “crutch” I’m referring to. I hope I’m making sense. Let me know if you have further questions.
Thanks for the explanation. I surmised that you meant something about like what you stated.
Junk science indeed does resemble John Kerry flip-flopping. But I think that most people can discriminate between junk science and ordinary science that undergoes various shifts in theories over more protracted periods.
Given what you stated about those of the untrained scientific community, is belief in the biblical creation account irrational? Or, here is another way to express the question. Is belief that the biblical creation account is true as narrated (six days, etc.), without introducing some kind of macro-evolution into the mix, unreasonable and irrational?
I think it is irrational for the untrained scientific community to believe in creationism and ID, if they have the knowledge that scientific consensus is for evolution. People who have no scientific knowledge (e.g. remote jungle tribe) are not irrational for believing in creationism, because they are ignorant of any scientific explanation. However, once you know about evolution, or heard that the scientific consensus holds to evolution, then one becomes irrational if they hold onto a belief with no data, and overwhelming data that goes against those beliefs.
The same can be said about any other belief that goes against data. Is it irrational for someone to think 9/11 was a US governmental conspiracy, or that Bigfoot walks along the Appalachian mountains, or that the moon landing was filmed in a Hollywood studio, or that there was a global flood? These examples not only have no data to support their claims, but the data at present goes firmly against those claims.
To say it is ok to believe in creationism, because they don’t know or understand the data is not a sufficient argument. If you are ignorant of something, say that. But then don’t go and say that the scientific community doesn’t know what they are talking about, and there is some big conspiracy going on. How different is that from 9/11 conspiracies and Holocaust deniers?
This is different than the argument for and against the supernatural. With this we have no scientific data for the supernatural, but in the same breath, we have no data that goes against those beliefs. So in this case it might be rational to believe in the supernatural, but that is more of a philosophical debate, which I am ignorant of.
Mark,
Thanks. You have plainly expressed what I expected that you would say.
Enough said, I believe.
You have plainly expressed what I expected that you would say.
Then why did you ask? I could have went to bed on time :)
I will stand with the Bible.
Evolution is wrong. God did create all that is in six days.
Mark,
I think it is irrational for the untrained scientific community to believe in creationism and ID, if they have the knowledge that scientific consensus is for evolution.
So are you proposing a Scientist as Priest model for the church?
I don't hold to that. There seemed to have been a consensus about Y2K,
Global Cooling, Global Warming, and I suspect there will be a return to Global Cooling soon enough.
If science is "contrary" to Scripture, I suggest that science is wrong. If you think that is irrational, fine.
I have no need to fall in line with the Priests of Knowledge. They me think I'm a fool all day.
1 Corinthians 1:27-29 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home