The Beauty of Being a Scientist and a Christian

[Ahimsa]

I am a Christian. I believe that God is the ultimate reality and that the world, including me, was created by God. But this is not just an idle affirmation, a faith statement to be recited in church on Sunday. I find my experience of the world enriched in several ways by my belief in God.

For starters, my first contact with the world that God created is through its great beauty. I write these words from my desk in a sunroom on the back of my house. Outside my window a row of Newport plums is in bloom, their delicate pink flowers lighting up the landscape. My andromedas are also blooming. The dogwood, whose branches brush my window when the wind blows, is starting to bud. Directly in front of me the sun is coming up, visible through the forest. New spring foliage at the tops of the trees is becoming illuminated. In a few minutes I will have to pull my blind to keep the sun out of my eyes.

A choir of birds is singing, celebrating the arrival of the new day. I can tell from their joyous song that they must not be Red Sox fans. The sound of the birds is so welcome, in contrast to the traffic noise from the front of my house, which starts up shortly after the birds each morning.

Scientific explanations exist for all that I see and hear outside my window. And explanations can be proposed for why humans enjoy nature so much. But faith [in] God is not about explanations. We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations…

 

[Leela]

I like how you’ve characterized descriptions as being inexstricably related to certain purposes for which those descriptions were created. If the purposes of one description can be kept out of the way of the purposes for another, then there is no reason why we need to make the two sets of descriptions cohere. The potential problems can only arise when a religious description of, say, the virgin birth, is asserted as a scientific or historical description.

Best,
Leela

 

[Ahimsa]

I like how you’ve characterized descriptions as being inexstricably related to certain purposes for which those descriptions were created. If the purposes of one description can be kept out of the way of the purposes for another, then there is no reason why we need to make the two sets of descriptions cohere. The potential problems can only arise when a religious description of, say, the virgin birth, is asserted as a scientific or historical description.

Best,
Leela

Good ideas. But why should the assertion of the historicity of the virgin birth pose a problem?

 

[lynx]

Good ideas. But why should the assertion of the historicity of the virgin birth pose a problem?

Mostly that it fails under current scientific method. To be supported, a hypothesis needs to be tested and its results reproducible. This cannot happen with virgin birth or any other miracle.

 

[crazzeto]

Mostly that it fails under current scientific method. To be supported, a hypothesis needs to be tested and its results reproducible. This cannot happen with virgin birth or any other miracle.

However, it happend and it happend perciesly because of what you described here. God wanted to make a statement with the conception of Christ, i.e. that I God am putting on flesh.

 

[lynx]

However, it happend and it happend perciesly because of what you described here. God wanted to make a statement with the conception of Christ, i.e. that I God am putting on flesh.

Fine. Now is it reproducible? If not then scientific methods shouldn’t be used.

 

[Ahimsa]

Mostly that it fails under current scientific method. To be supported, a hypothesis needs to be tested and its results reproducible. This cannot happen with virgin birth or any other miracle.

This also cannot happen with many historical events. Can you reproduce Caesar’s conquest of Gaul?

Isn’t a historical claim that the virgin birth happened, different from a scientific claim that such a virgin birth is reproducible?

 

[lynx]

This also cannot happen with many historical events. Can you reproduce Caesar’s conquest of Gaul?

No, but we can verify the weaponry, time period, land topography, tools, human life span, ethnicity of populace, etc and etc. Using science we can investigate the claims from the past and either support or refute them.

Isn’t a historical claim that the virgin birth happened, different from a scientific claim that such a virgin birth is reproducible?

As long as such a claim falls within the realm of possibility you are right. For instance, I can say that in 10000 BC unicorns went to the sea to become Narwhals. This would be a historical claim based upon me saying so, which is about the degree any historical claim has. So, for truth in a claim, you must also verify that it is possible. The proof for such a claim would be daunting as would a virgin birth.

 

[Ahimsa]

As long as such a claim falls within the realm of possibility you are right. For instance, I can say that in 10000 BC unicorns went to the sea to become Narwhals. This would be a historical claim based upon me saying so, which is about the degree any historical claim has. So, for truth in a claim, you must also verify that it is possible. The proof for such a claim would be daunting as would a virgin birth.

Virgin birth, or parthenogenesis, is certainly within the realm of possibility, even for vertebrates.

 

[lynx]

Virgin birth, or parthenogenesis, is certainly within the realm of possibility, even for vertebrates.

So how would you postulate this happens in the human species. The structure of our DNA does not allow for parthenogenesis.

 

[Ahimsa]

So how would you postulate this happens in the human species. The structure of our DNA does not allow for parthenogenesis.

Small technical difficulty, not insurmountable.

 

[JohnSanzone5]

So how would you postulate this happens in the human species. The structure of our DNA does not allow for parthenogenesis.

… normally. There are, as you may know, other examples of parthenogenesis in other species, and there is nothing specifically to bar parthenogenesis indefinitely, under every circumstance in ours.

With that said, I am not entirely sure about this thread. In my opinion, the BVM’s virgin birth of our Lord was miracle… meaning that it was ‘’‘supernatural’’’ and outside of the bounds of nature, and therefore not explicable by natural laws. Hence, why it is special and distinctly an act of the Almighty.

At the same time, I think that science is a valuable tool to describe natural phenomenon.

Unfortunately, we have parasites on this forum like lynx who, after taking a Biology course at their CC, now take it upon themselves to point out the obvious ridiculousness of the miracle’s occurrence within the natural order.

 

[lynx]

Small technical difficulty, not insurmountable.

Indeed it is not. I have some theories myself, but I look forward to your explanation

 

[DonM]

I like how you’ve characterized descriptions as being inexstricably related to certain purposes for which those descriptions were created. If the purposes of one description can be kept out of the way of the purposes for another, then there is no reason why we need to make the two sets of descriptions cohere. The potential problems can only arise when a religious description of, say, the virgin birth, is asserted as a scientific or historical description.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

This also cannot happen with many historical events. Can you reproduce Caesar’s conquest of Gaul?

Isn’t a historical claim that the virgin birth happened, different from a scientific claim that such a virgin birth is reproducible?

Hi Ahimsa and lynx,

I guess we should try to sort out the difference between a scientific claim and a historical one. I think defining a scientific claim based on methodology or reproducibility is problematic. Kuhn’s look at the history of science revealed no particular method, and standards such as reproducibility would rule out a lot of scientific knowledge.

I suggest the following characterization of science borrowed from Richard Rorty: “On a pragmatist account, scientific inquiry is best viewed as the attempt to find a single, unified, coherent description of the world–the description that makes it easiest to predict the consequences of events and actions…”

I suggest this definition of history based on a definition extrapolated from Rorty’s view of science: “On a pragmatist account, [historic inquiry] is best viewed as the attempt to find a single, unified, coherent description of [our past]–the description that makes it easiest to [get agreement on what our past was like.]”

Both of these endeavors are attempts to gratify particular human desires–specifically, the desire to predict and control. (A Rationalist may object to Rorty’s definition of science because it leaves out the aim of science to find out how the objective world works independently of human goals and purposes. The pragmatic response here is to note that the project of science as “finding out how the objective world works independently of human goals and purposes” is itself one of our human goals and purposes.) If a belief is not held with the desire to predict and control, then we need not worry about whether it agrees with science, but if a believer asserts that, say, prayer is efficacious in curing diseases, then she is participating in the public project called science and will face the demand for evidence inherent in such an enterprise concerned with getting consensus. Likewise, claims about virgin birth, raising the dead, the Biblical account of the origin of the universe, and the effectiveness of various sacraments are the sorts of assertions that, if taken to be historically and scientifically true rather than true in some other way, need to face up to the demands for evidence and the standards for what counts as evidence that apply to the public projects of doing history and doing science.

(Having mentioned the importance of evidence, I should add a definition. I am not taking evidence to be anything more than whatever may help us get consensus. Evidence, then, is only important in public projects where consensus is something we desire.)

Consider the debate surrounding Creation Science. When pragmatists say that Intelligent Design or Creation Science is “bad science” we mean that it places the desire for God’s agency to be at the center of science’s description of the world above the desire for this description to be the one that is most useful for predicting and controlling the environment. A desciption of the world that centers on God’s agency renders any attempt to predict and control the world futile. Since any experiences whatsoever that we might have or can imagine having would be consistent with the assertion that God created the world to be exactly that way, Creation Science doesn’t tell us anything about what sorts of experiences we should expect to have. Such a “science” would then be useless for doing the predicting and controlling that scientific inquiry is pursued to help us achieve.

On the other hand, if it is claimed that, say, the earth was created in seven days, and this claim is intended as some other sort of assertion–if it is asserted as true in some other way than as participation in the public project of finding a unified coherent description of the world that best enables us to predict and control–then these assertions need not face such demands for evidence on historical-scientific terms. If people making such assertions do indeed intend something clearly different in purpose from historical and scientific inquiry and can articulate in what other ways, if not scientifically and historically, these religious claims may be regarded as true, then perhaps it can indeed be made coherent to say as is so often claimed by theists that there is no conflict between science and religion.

The virgin birth, is not generally asserted as a scientific claim as Ahimsa has asserted it. It is generally held to be scientifically impossible. That is what it means to say that its occurrence is a miracle. The claim that the virgin birth or any miracle is historical runs into problems, however, since it is not thought that we have the sort of evidence that would be needed to warrant such a claim as historical truth. No Catholic historian, for example, could assert the historicity of the virgin birth when working within her field of expertise. She could still, perhaps, assert it in some other ways, but she would not be able to assert it as something that she and other historians ought to be able to come to consensus about–as historical truth. There are lots of reasons for this that we can go into if you’d like, but my initial impression was that you had claimed to be able to hold your public scientific inquiry as something distinct from your private Christian beliefs.

Best,
Leela

 

[JohnSanzone5]

Hi Ahimsa and lynx,

I guess we should try to sort out the difference between a scientific claim and a historical one. I think defining a scientific claim based on methodology or reproducibility is problematic. Kuhn’s look at the history of science revealed no particular method, and standards such as reproducibility would rule out a lot of scientific knowledge.

I suggest the following characterization of science borrowed from Richard Rorty: “On a pragmatist account, scientific inquiry is best viewed as the attempt to find a single, unified, coherent description of the world–the description that makes it easiest to predict the consequences of events and actions…”

I suggest this definition of history based on a definition extrapolated from Rorty’s view of science: “On a pragmatist account, [historic inquiry] is best viewed as the attempt to find a single, unified, coherent description of [our past]–the description that makes it easiest to [get agreement on what our past was like.]”

Both of these endeavors are attempts to gratify particular human desires–specifically, the desire to predict and control. (A Rationalist may object to Rorty’s definition of science because it leaves out the aim of science to find out how the objective world works independently of human goals and purposes. The pragmatic response here is to note that the project of science as “finding out how the objective world works independently of human goals and purposes” is itself one of our human goals and purposes.) If a belief is not held with the desire to predict and control, then we need not worry about whether it agrees with science, but if a believer asserts that, say, prayer is efficacious in curing diseases, then she is participating in the public project called science and will face the demand for evidence inherent in such an enterprise concerned with getting consensus. Likewise, claims about virgin birth, raising the dead, the Biblical account of the origin of the universe, and the effectiveness of various sacraments are the sorts of assertions that, if taken to be historically and scientifically true rather than true in some other way, need to face up to the demands for evidence and the standards for what counts as evidence that apply to the public projects of doing history and doing science.

(Having mentioned the importance of evidence, I should add a definition. I am not taking evidence to be anything more than whatever may help us get consensus. Evidence, then, is only important in public projects where consensus is something we desire.)

Consider the debate surrounding Creation Science. When pragmatists say that Intelligent Design or Creation Science is “bad science” we mean that it places the desire for God’s agency to be at the center of science’s description of the world above the desire for this description to be the one that is most useful for predicting and controlling the environment. A desciption of the world that centers on God’s agency renders any attempt to predict and control the world futile. Since any experiences whatsoever that we might have or can imagine having would be consistent with the assertion that God created the world to be exactly that way, Creation Science doesn’t tell us anything about what sorts of experiences we should expect to have. Such a “science” would then be useless for doing the predicting and controlling that scientific inquiry is pursued to help us achieve.

On the other hand, if it is claimed that, say, the earth was created in seven days, and this claim is intended as some other sort of assertion–if it is asserted as true in some other way than as participation in the public project of finding a unified coherent description of the world that best enables us to predict and control–then these assertions need not face such demands for evidence on historical-scientific terms. If people making such assertions do indeed intend something clearly different in purpose from historical and scientific inquiry and can articulate in what other ways, if not scientifically and historically, these religious claims may be regarded as true, then perhaps it can indeed be made coherent to say as is so often claimed by theists that there is no conflict between science and religion.

The virgin birth, is not generally asserted as a scientific claim as Ahimsa has asserted it. It is generally held to be scientifically impossible. That is what it means to say that its occurrence is a miracle. The claim that the virgin birth or any miracle is historical runs into problems, however, since it is not thought that we have the sort of evidence that would be needed to warrant such a claim as historical truth. No Catholic historian, for example, could assert the historicity of the virgin birth when working within her field of expertise. She could still, perhaps, assert it in some other ways, but she would not be able to assert it as something that she and other historians ought to be able to come to consensus about–as historical truth. There are lots of reasons for this that we can go into if you’d like, but my initial impression was that you had claimed to be able to hold your public scientific inquiry as something distinct from your private Christian beliefs.

Best,
Leela

QED,
tl;dr
Cheers,
JS5