In the
latest round of the ongoing debate over the historicity of Adam, it might seem
to some Christians that the traditional belief is taking on water with mounting
scientific evidence to the contrary. Sure, Christian apologists can continue to
fight rearguard actions. Practice guerilla tactics. We can always regroup. Come
up with ingenuous explanations to save the phenomena, but doesn’t the effort
look increasingly desperate? Shouldn’t we do the honorable thing and concede
defeat? We gave it the old college try, but the opposition won fair-n-square.
Of course, that way of framing the issue takes certain
things for granted regarding the state of the evidence. And that, itself, is
hotly contested.
But for now I’d like to make a different point. In the history
of ideas, including the history of philosophy and science, every major idea,
right or wrong, is bound to be challenged. There will always be new challenges
to old ideas, right or wrong.
One of the striking things about the history of ideas is
that once a major idea is introduced into the discussion, it rarely goes away.
There are precious few knockdown arguments in the history of ideas. Major
ideas, along with competing ideas, are very tenacious.
What usually happens, in the course of debate, is not a case
where one side wins while the other side loses. Rather, after every debate,
each side becomes a bit more sophisticated. It takes the objections into
account and develops a more refined version of the original position. This
dialectical process goes on generation after generation. It’s a constant
battle, back-and-forth.
For every argument there’s a counterargument. However often
you beat back the challengers, there will always be a new challenger just over
the hill. For instance, Darwinism has continuously reinvented itself.
Yes, it may look like special pleading when Christians
defend the historical Adam against the “latest scientific evidence,” but that’s
hardly unique to Christian dogma. These debates are inherently cyclical. Both
sides periodically retool their arguments.
The arguments today aren’t just the same arguments from a
century ago. And the arguments a century from now won’t be just the same as
they are today. So we need to keep things in perspective. Because we live in
the present, our outlook is necessarily blinkered.
Scientific issues frustrate me. Mainly because I never feel like I have the expertise to evaluate the issues. I understand the philosophy science, and I usually use some form of anti-realism when the discussion goes to science, but that is rarely convincing to the common objector, because they usually find that way of thinking so contrary to their ordinary way of thinking that they easily fall back into some form of pop-positivism. What do we do in that situation?
ReplyDelete^ Not that I'm against scientific anti-realism, but it seems to me that many Christians who trot it out don't understand it, misstate the view, or apply it inconsistently (esp. when using scientific arguments to argue that God's existence is (probably) true given the evidence). Also, scientific anti-realism comes with some costs that at least some Christians don't seem to reflectively consider, and it's hard to stave of anti-realism in other areas once you've accepted the basic premises for scientific anti-realism. Not saying it can't be done, but it's harder than some think. That said, why would "pop-positivism" undermine scientific anti-realism? Indeed, realism stands in *contrast* to positivism.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I should have said "pop-scientism". Sorry about that. I don't really find "scientific arguments" for God's existence to be useful, since they easily fall prey to the changes of scientific findings, or are easily interpreted in a contrary manner. I would be curious to know exactly how a Christian can respond to the findings of modern science, especially when it seems to undermine certain parts of the biblical narrative. For instance the fall narratives seem forced if they refer to some tribal chieftans, or some neanderthal man that was ensouled at some random point in earth's history. I am not dogmatic on certain points of YEC (no death before the fall doesn't seem to be a necessary conclusion from the biblical text, nor does Paul refer to anything other than spiritual death in Romans 5), but something like a Young earth does seem to unify the biblical narrative more elegantly, and it seems to be the most plausible reading of the text (IMHO).
ReplyDeleteI guess I am asking for a positive way of approaching the subject. As I noted above the anti-realism tact is unsatisfactory to me when talking to a non-believer, but I also find the apologetic of groups like Reason to Believe, BioLogos etc. to be unsatisfying. What is a Christian to do in that situation? What does it matter if you can defeat most objections, but you run into the one that most people uses (science as defeater for religion), but you do not have the time to research the relevant science in an honest way. I get the feeling that to discuss scientific issues you would need to be rather knowledgeable in those fields, and that takes time and money most of us do not have.
ReplyDeleteI also noted that I find something like a YEC interpretation of Genesis 1-11 to be the most satisfactory when approaching the biblical text. I can take that position on faith. I cannot know everything after all, but it would be nice to have a response to the honest person who asks questions. I just don't want to be one of those people who use bad information in making my case, and I see that a lot in discussions about science. Maybe there isn't a solution to my question, but it is something I wonder about.
Finally, I have found Steve's use of anti-realist arguments useful in his discussion, so I get what you are saying, but I still think it may be one of the only options for us, unless the YEC guys start providing startling evidence for their claims(not saying there isn't evidence, but it is far from overwhelming.
Hi Pseudo-Augustine,
ReplyDeleteJust a few quick thoughts for now:
"What does it matter if you can defeat most objections, but you run into the one that most people uses (science as defeater for religion), but you do not have the time to research the relevant science in an honest way."
1. I could be wrong but I would bet most people you run into aren't any more scientifically literate than you are. So I wouldn't necessarily sell yourself short! I mean I don't know how much scientific knowledge you do have, but even if you have very little I doubt most people you run into would have much more than you have. Hopefully that's encouraging!
2. Besides I bet you could come up to speed and deal with quite a lot of the most common scientific objections by reading a few key books, which Steve and Paul and others have recommended on Tblog.
Most books are pretty cheap today. You can get them used. Some people like Vern Poythress have a policy of making their books available for free to download.
Or you can gain a lot of knowledge from reading articles rather than books from scientists or mathematicians or philosophers. I've found a lot of articles tend to cover in shorter compass what a scholar might later turn into a book.
3. As I'm sure you know, we can always push back in terms of what underlines their (for example) naturalistic evolutionary background on presuppositional grounds.
"I get the feeling that to discuss scientific issues you would need to be rather knowledgeable in those fields, and that takes time and money most of us do not have."
1. For one thing, not all scientists are equally scientifically literate! In fact, given how narrowly focused academic science is, I would think a lot of scientists would be quite ignorant about other fields of science outside their own. It's not as if Dawkins knows a whole lot about quantum physics.
2. Not even the best scientists who are Christians can address every single problem. But we can punt to our betters. We can pick and choose among various scholars or scientists in various fields. We can recommend resources from others who are more competent than we are to address this or that.
"I just don't want to be one of those people who use bad information in making my case, and I see that a lot in discussions about science."
1. God hasn't given all of us the same talents, opportunities, amount of time, money, and so forth that he has given to others. To whom much is given, much will be required. We can strive to do the best with what God has given us, but this doesn't mean we ourselves have to address every single problem.
2. And, of course, there's nothing wrong with saying I don't know.
I can say more later as time permits.
Thanks for your comments. I appreciate you and Paul taking the time to give me your views. It has been helpful. I will post some more tomorrow. I have class in the morning, so I need to get some rest. Thanks again.
ReplyDelete