Expressing bad attitudes to science without realising it

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

In the discussion about How (not?) to speak to scientists about Jesus a year and a half ago, I said this:

@jammycakes

I think the main advice that I would give is: demonstrate to them that you take them seriously. For many scientists, their experience of Christianity has been tainted by bad attitudes towards science. There are many Christians who approach science in ways that are condescending, dishonest, suspicious, passive-aggressive, judgmental or even outright hostile, and if you want to persuade a scientist to listen to you, the very first thing you have to establish is that you are not one of them.

A conversation with a YEC friend a few months back made me realise that some Christians express bad attitudes towards science without realising that that is what they are doing. This being the case, I thought it might be worthwhile to make a note of some of the things that I hear from time to time in Christian circles that (possibly unintentionally) sound condescending, dishonest, suspicious, passive-aggressive, judgmental or hostile.

These are they.

The expression “secular science.” There is no such thing as “secular science.” Science has rules and honesty has rules, and the rules are the same for Christians and secularists alike. To talk about “secular science” is like talking about “secular measurement” or “secular honesty” or “secular facts.” It’s basically a refusal to play by the rules.

Denouncing scientific findings that you don’t like as “compromise.” Once more, this is a refusal to play by the rules. If someone is telling you to stick to the rules of science and your response is to accuse them of “compromise,” then you are effectively saying that the rules of science should be disregarded. That is antagonism towards science, period.

The only time when an accusation of “compromise” might be warranted is if you have evidence that the rules are demonstrably being broken and that there is a concerted effort to hush it up. Even then, you need to make sure that both you, and the person whom you are accusing of compromise, know what the rules of science actually are.

Denouncing scientific findings that you don’t like as “atheist.” Unless you can demonstrate that atheism really is the decisive factor behind a particular finding (and this is rarely if ever the case), then you’re simply not getting your facts straight.

Snide remarks about “putting your trust in science” or “having more faith in science than in God.”

Claims that “scientists are always changing their minds.” Scientists only change their minds in controlled and disciplined ways in response to new data or new techniques for analysing the data. To portray science as an arbitrary, make-it-up-as-you-go kind of affair when in actual fact it is rigorous and disciplined is a false accusation against hard working scientists.

Referring to scientific theories as “evolutionist” when they have nothing to do with biological evolution. This is basically dividing science in two, using “science” to refer to the bits that you are prepared to accept and “evolution” to attack the bits that you aren’t. This is an intrinsically anti-science attitude.

Talking about “assumptions” without stating clearly what the assumptions in question actually are. Assumptions are not a get-out-of-jail-free card; you have to justify your claim that they could have been violated in a way that remained consistent with whatever alternative hypothesis you are proposing.

Loaded questions. This was the main problem that I had with the “How to talk to scientists about Jesus” article—it comes across as trying to win an argument rather than trying to actually learn something.

Approaching science as an ammunition-gathering exercise for apologetic purposes. This is a recipe for completely misunderstanding the subject, getting things wrong, quote mining, and undermining your exam results.

Discouraging your young people from pursuing science-based careers. This does happen from time to time. Parents, pastors and youth leaders who try to divert science-minded young people away from fruitful careers in the sciences onto other tracks (including “science-based apologetics”) are doing them a disservice and in some cases may be setting them up for failure and frustration.

These are just a few of the examples that I can think of off the top of my head. A couple of other takeaways.

• Remember that science has rules. It’s not so much a rejection of specific scientific findings that makes people come across as antagonistic to science. Rather, it’s a refusal to play by the rules when doing so.
• Remember that science is a practical and hands-on activity. Make sure that you fully understand how the mechanics of science work before attempting to tackle the philosophy of science.
• Remember that science is the basis for people’s jobs and careers. Teaching things about science that are incorrect, misleading or confusing can undermine people’s ability to do their jobs properly. Especially if you are attaching a strong doctrinal importance to the incorrect, misleading or confusing claims in question.

[SkovandOfMitaze (Mi)]

I think you just mentioned the playbook for a certain type of American Christian I meet quite often in Alabama.

[St.Roymond]

I met plenty in Missouri, too.

[Kendel]

Michigan’s been covered as well.

[T_aquaticus]

A lot of what you talk about can be addressed by pointing to the existence of thousands or perhaps millions of Christian biologists who accept the theory of evolution.

It reminds me of Flat Earthers and the conspiracy they would need to exist in order for their beliefs to be true. We are talking about multiple national space agencies and companies that operate satellites, not to mention the millions of scientists world wide that would have to be in on the conspiracy. The same applies to evolution. There would have to be many, many Christian biologists around the world who are actively conspiring to keep evolution within biology for no apparent reason.

[adamjedgar (adam james edgar)]

1. Christ spent almost the entirety of his ministry calling pharasees, priests, and levites hypocrits, vipers etc…so theres that!
2. No one in the Christian movement is callsd to preach science…if you think thats your calling, then you havent a clue what preaching the gospel means.
3. I agree that we should not disuade anyone from engaging in science based learning and careers. What i do disagree with is the notion naturalisms evolutionary science is the only science and that any interpretation of the evidence that dissagrees with evolutionary theory isnt science.
4. As is always stated here, Christianity isnt science, thats because i think true science, the unbiased version of it, is not a belief but a tool to help understand our existence. However, whilst the tool is unbiased, its users produce different outcomes because of their presuppositions…no different to two individuals being given a bag of clay and forming something from it.

[T_aquaticus]

@adamjedgar

What i do disagree with is the notion naturalisms evolutionary science is the only science and that any interpretation of the evidence that dissagrees with evolutionary theory isnt science.

It’s not a case of disagreeing with evolutionary not being science. It’s a case of YEC/OEC interpretations not being scientific all on their own. For example, when you invoke a change in radioactive decay rates that would heat the planet to 22,000 degrees Celcius based on nothing more than wanting it to be true, then that isn’t science.

[St.Roymond]

@T_aquaticus

It reminds me of Flat Earthers and the conspiracy they would need to exist in order for their beliefs to be true.

I once saw a letter purportedly from a major Hollywood studio to a prominent flat-earther. It basically said, “Yes, the moon landings were done by Hollywood – we filmed them on location”.

[St.Roymond]

@adamjedgar

No one in the Christian movement is callsd to preach science

That covers the entire YEC enterprise.

[Kendel]

@adamjedgar

i think true science, the unbiased version of it, is not a belief but a tool to help understand our existence

That is the bias of what you call “true science” though, @adamjedgar.
God doesn’t need or use “true science” to help us understand our existence. He tells us about our existence in the hard-to-understand, open-to-interpretation Scriptures we Christians rely on.

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

@T_aquaticus

It’s not a case of disagreeing with evolutionary not being science. It’s a case of YEC/OEC interpretations not being scientific all on their own.

It’s not so much that. Rather, the issue is people claiming to be pro-science, or that they love science, or that they aren’t rejecting science, while expressing sentiments that demonstrate attitudes that are hostile to science in general.

It’s not necessarily just about creation and evolution either. There is a tendency in discussions such as this one to view it as all about YEC versus evolution, and while that does play a part, there is a wider issue at stake of how they are coming across towards people who very often have to engage with science in very hands-on and practical ways in their day to day lives.

@adamjedgar

No one in the Christian movement is callsd to preach science…if you think thats your calling, then you havent a clue what preaching the gospel means.

No-one is asking anyone in the Christian movement to “preach science,” Adam. But we do have to preach the Gospel in a world where science plays a fundamental role in just about everything we do. We have to preach the Gospel to people who work with science day in and day out. We have to preach the Gospel to people who have to know, understand and respect the rules of science in order to do their jobs.

This brings me back to the point that I keep hammering home: that science has rules. Rules that apply to every area of science, both “operational” and “historical,” and that have nothing whatsoever to do with “naturalism” or “atheism” or “secularism.” Many of us have to know, understand and apply the rules correctly in order to do our jobs. If we didn’t apply the rules properly we would drive our employers out of business and in some cases possibly even kill people in the process. If, that is, we weren’t fired for professional misconduct and sued out of our insurances first.

If you are demanding that we set aside those rules, or if you are dismissing the rules as “naturalist” or “atheist” or “secularist” or any other weasel word ending in “-ist”, or if you are preaching things that flout those rules—and I’m sorry, but young earthism and evolution denial very much do flout those rules, often in blatant and egregious ways—then that is a bad attitude to science in general no matter how much you try to protest that it isn’t. And if you are trying to cite the Bible or the Gospel message as justification for doing so, then you are just making the Bible and the Gospel message look bad and out of touch with reality.

[adamjedgar (adam james edgar)]

@T_aquaticus

@adamjedgar

What i do disagree with is the notion naturalisms evolutionary science is the only science and that any interpretation of the evidence that dissagrees with evolutionary theory isnt science.

It’s not a case of disagreeing with evolutionary not being science. It’s a case of YEC/OEC interpretations not being scientific all on their own. For example, when you invoke a change in radioactive decay rates that would heat the planet to 22,000 degrees Celcius based on nothing more than wanting it to be true, then that isn’t science.

absoutely we do…because naturalisms argument cannot account for a miracle (ie the flood and its aftermath).

There is an ever increasing number of evidences found within science that do not align with the standard naturalism model, however, they do support the Genesis account when read literally.

One of these evidences was the finding of soft tissue in dinosaur bones. Prior to proving the find, the naysayers were adament no such thing could ever be because the bones were roughly 65 million years old! Isnt it funny how quickly those naysayers dissapeared into the shadows!

Another evidence was the realisation that a number of fossils of early man were intentionally falsified and made to look ape like when in fact they did not look anything like what was claimed! One of these “cons” went on for a number of decades and is still on display despite the publicly recognised and proven gross error it contains!

Anyway, back to the point im making, that the flood and its aftermath were a miracle…

Are you denying that God performed a miracle that is Noahs flood and that he miraculously saved the people in the Ark when everything else in this world perished? (and thats the point, the bible very specifically states in both the Old and the New Testament, that the flood killed on life on earth.)

Genesis 7:23
Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark

Matthew (24:37-38) and Luke (17:26-27) record the same saying of Jesus: “Just as it was in the days of Noah , so too it will be in the days of the Son of Man… . . They were eating and drinking, and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed all of them.”

You see, I as a YEC do not claim the flood is necessarily scientific…i claim the bible demonstrates the flood and its aftermath was a miracle. I also believe that the corrution of sin did not stop because of the flood. I believe that God directly steadied the ark and allowed that ship and its precious cargo to survive a catastrophie and that Satan spared no effort in trying to sink that boat. I also believe that Satan has directly influenced many things related to the earths geology in the after math of the fall of mankind and the flood, that modern man then uses make assumptions that appear to falsify the bible history and therefore its credibility.

If you wish to deny miracles???

[adamjedgar (adam james edgar)]

@Kendel

@adamjedgar

i think true science, the unbiased version of it, is not a belief but a tool to help understand our existence

That is the bias of what you call “true science” though, @adamjedgar.
God doesn’t need or use “true science” to help us understand our existence. He tells us about our existence in the hard-to-understand, open-to-interpretation Scriptures we Christians rely on.

Kendel,

are you genuinely not sure what the following means?

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.

Revelation 14:12 12 This calls for patient endurance on the part of the people of God who keep his commands and remain faithful to Jesus.

I have to be blunt…if you do not understand the above, then i would question you having any reason to even be Christian because the above are the simplest/easiest to understand parts of the world view! They are straight forward statements that self interpret through a normal reading of language.

If you genuinely cannot allow those bible statements ive referenced above to self interpret, because you cannot reconcile them scientifically, then the miracles Christ performed are by your own infered definition…utter nonsense. If the miracles are utter nonesense (because science says they are impossible), then the entire faith is not credible and you truly are living a delusion and therefore, wasting you time!

Some of Christs miracles listed below:
-born of a women who had never had sex in her life (you do honestly believe that right?)
-water into wine
-healed Peters Mother in law
-healed the Centurions servant
-healed a mans withered hand
-spoke to the elements and immediately calmed a raging storm
-cleansed a man with leprosy
-cast demons into a herd of pigs who then ran down into the sea and drowned themselves!
-spits in a blind mans eyes and heals his blindness
-healed blind bartimaeus in Jericho
-fed 5,000 people with 5 loaves and 2 fish
-raised a widows son as well as Lazurus from the dead

The point is, naturalism uses science to say it has theorectical proofs that make the biblical world view impossible and yet you appear to ignore only those parts of the dilemma that conveniently work for you. YEC dont throw their hands up in the air citing “too hard basket”. YEC go looking for answers to those questions and whether you agree or not, they are increasingly finding the answers to some really big questions.

Now if the above has the effect of causing you to lose faith, then that proves to me that your faith isnt based on “the right stuff” in the first place. You faith is based on what is scientifically and socially convenient for you.

[rsewell (RON SEWELL)]

@jammycakes

I thought it might be worthwhile to make a note of some of the things that I hear from time to time in Christian circles that (possibly unintentionally) sound condescending, dishonest, suspicious, passive-aggressive, judgmental or hostile.

Another one I see a lot of, to file under condescending - The reason most scientists accept evolution and an old earth is that they have not critically thought it through. They just accept what they were taught in class. As if they go through their entire careers oblivious to foundational concepts which they build their research on.

…and the next step is the beyond the pale…

Scientists know that it is all a hoax, but their jobs are on the line and they are afraid of the repercussions should they speak up against the religion of evolution.

Some of it is just trolling, but there are those who, never having known an actual scientist, actually believe this stuff thanks to the crafted innuendo of some apologetic organizations.

[rsewell (RON SEWELL)]

@adamjedgar

One of these evidences was the finding of soft tissue in dinosaur bones. Prior to proving the find, the naysayers were adament no such thing could ever be because the bones were roughly 65 million years old! Isnt it funny how quickly those naysayers dissapeared into the shadows!

Another evidence was the realisation that a number of fossils of early man were intentionally falsified and made to look ape like when in fact they did not look anything like what was claimed! One of these “cons” went on for a number of decades and is still on display despite the publicly recognised and proven gross error it contains!

Really Adam, this is getting stale. You need some new material.

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

@adamjedgar

One of these evidences was the finding of soft tissue in dinosaur bones. Prior to proving the find, the naysayers were adament no such thing could ever be because the bones were roughly 65 million years old! Isnt it funny how quickly those naysayers dissapeared into the shadows!

Another example.

Continuing to repeat a claim that is false or misleading after having had it repeatedly explained to you not only that it is false or misleading, but why it is false or misleading.

[Kendel]

@adamjedgar

i would question you having any reason to even be Christian

Pardon?!
This is the cop out used by all sorts of dogmatists: “If you don’t ride my same hobby horse, you should ‘examine yourself’ to make sure you’re really in the faith.” As if I haven’t or don’t!

I am saved by grace through faith, not of myself, but as a gift of God, in order to do good works.
Just like you.
Jesus said, “Follow me,” and calls those who do his sheep.
He didn’t require an entrance exam, he said “Abide in me,” which I am doing. Whether you understand or accept it or not.
Who are you to judge someone else’s servant?!

@adamjedgar

If the miracles are utter nonesense

The miracles are miracles. Adam, you can’t reconcile them with science or even “science”, either. They are not the product of nonsensical, biased, dogmatic pseudoscience. They are miracles. Unexplainable. Out of the realm of nature. They are something only God can do. That’s the point of them!

If I read the two different Genesis accounts of creation and the account of the Flood as some genre other than historic, I am not “denying miracles.” I am attempting to understand rightly what those accounts are and mean.

@adamjedgar

self interpret

We’ve talked about hermeneutics before. “Self-interpretation” – whatever that means – is a myth. The Bible is a library, not a single unit handed down by the hand of God in one piece. The different authors over the long history of its writing and development do not exhibit a hive mind. And we readers bring lots to the text that we don’t even notice. You can keep insisting, if it strengthens your faith. But don’t attempt to bind my conscience to your hermeneutic that I find insupportable.

@adamjedgar

naturalism uses science to say it has theorectical proofs that make the biblical world view impossible

Which biblical world view, Adam? Yours? The Pope’s? Mary’s? Augustine’s? Zinzenndorf’s? Armstrong’s? Calvin’s? Luther’s? Galileo’s? Whose?!

Naturalism and science don’t say any such thing. But you don’t believe that.

@adamjedgar

they are increasingly finding the answers to some really big questions.

They are increasingly making stuff up, adding to their claims without proof, condemning people whose consciences tell them that using honest weights and measures are part of obeying God.

@adamjedgar

Now if the above has the effect of causing you to lose faith,

I am not going to lose my faith over your claims that I don’t do faith right. This song keeps coming to mind as I type: My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness. I dare not trust the sweetest frame, but wholly lean on Jesus’ name.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@adamjedgar

are you genuinely not sure what the following means?

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.

Would it change your thinking to suggest that what it meant at the time and what it means to us now could be different?

Do we have to live to ignore God given knowledge over the past 3000 years or so since those words were written. Or do you claim that scientific knowledge is not God given?

@adamjedgar

the people of God who keep his commands and remain faithful to Jesus.

has absolutely nothng to do with science.

furthermore, Christianity does not dictae what we understand about the world around us, especially if there is no tangent to basic beleifs. The way (and timing) the universe was created is not central to Christian beleifs. All we assert is that God did it. Now you can moan at science for excluding God, if you like, but just because they do not “see” His hand does not mean it is not there, doing what they see.

It is about deciding what is essential, and what is just personal differences.You are entering dogdy terrritory when you start claiming a beleif is non Christian.

Richard

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

@adamjedgar

I have to be blunt…if you do not understand the above, then i would question you having any reason to even be Christian because the above are the simplest/easiest to understand parts of the world view!

Accusing scientists who are Christians of not being Christians because they insist that the rules and standards of scientific rigour and integrity must be maintained.

@rsewell

Scientists know that it is all a hoax, but their jobs are on the line and they are afraid of the repercussions should they speak up against the religion of evolution.

Claiming or insinuating, without firm evidence, that scientists are lying.

[Roy]

@adamjedgar

Another evidence was the realisation that a number of fossils of early man were intentionally falsified and made to look ape like when in fact they did not look anything like what was claimed! One of these “cons” went on for a number of decades and is still on display despite the publicly recognised and proven gross error it contains!

Which fossil, and where is it on display? What others were intentionally falsified?