From what I have observed in forums like these, I think it might be helpful to have a Philosophy of Science course in seminaries and bible schools. I have run across many people who are very confused as to what science actually is. One topic that comes to mind is the difference between ontological and methodological naturalism, of which science is the latter. Learning the basics of how the scientific method works would also greatly help, IMO.
5 Likes
I feel your pain, Kendel. Itās YECs with science degrees who really make me lose it.
These people arenāt coming out with bad arguments because of their scientific training; rather, theyāre coming out with bad arguments in spite of it. I could perhaps understand some of them finding some ID arguments persuasive, since ID arguments tend to be relatively technical and often require a certain amount of specialist knowledge to fact-check them. But YECism flies in the face of some very basic, elementary principles that are foundational to every area of science. There are vast swathes of YEC arguments that can be falsified with nothing more than a bit of GCSE (junior high school) maths, a basic understanding of what error bars are, and a couple of quick Google searches. Stuff that I would expect every working scientist and engineer to know cold.
Iāve had some of them wave their scientific credentials in my face, thinking it will persuade me to back down. It doesnāt. Instead, I remind them that because they are scientists, they have to meet higher standards than their fellow parishioners who are not. Auntie Flossie who gave up science at the first possible opportunity at age sixteen in 1973 and hasnāt set foot in a laboratory since could be excused on the grounds of ignorance when she spouts claims that are nonsensical or mathematically incoherent. They do not have the luxury of that excuse.
5 Likes
I empathize with the scientific laity because they just happened to trust the wrong people. Like you, itās the people who should know better that bother me.
2 Likes
They donāt need to learn how to do the calculations themselves, they need to learn how to vet sources and what makes science reliable and scientists trustworthy. You can address these issues with coursework on epistemology and cognitive biases without actually learning to evaluate the science and math of scientific findings for oneself.
4 Likes
Iām not sure that you can.
The problem is that youāre talking about people who have had it drummed into them that science is something āsecularā that is not to be trusted. Chances are high that youāre only going to address that by putting them in situations where they have to face the consequences of getting science wrong.
Been there, seen it, done it, got the T-shirt. Thatās why I place such an emphasis on hands-on experience.
1 Like
Where have you encountered that in the UK?
My heart mainly goes out to the widespread acceptance of atheism as a legitimate possibility.
Of all the pastors, ministry workers, and lay leaders I know personally who have changed their mind about young earth/evolution as adults, not a single one got hands-on experience doing science. They were convinced to adopt a different approach to Bible interpretation and often they had a scientist in their life that they knew personally and trusted. Yes, some people are so entrenched in an anti-science worldview they arenāt going to be open to new ideas. But expecting all pastors to complete multiple courses in science so they donāt say ignorant things from the pulpit isnāt realistic, and frankly, given the state of the church, they would be better served by courses that deal with child abuse prevention, trauma awareness, and the psychology of abusive leaders and dysfunctional teams.
5 Likes
Often also as you get comfortable bringing it up casually and recommending books on various interpretations of places like genesis youāll notice there are usually others who also agree. At worse case they churchās actions simply allows you to know itās best to bounce it.
1 Like
We should let the scientists tell us what science is and how to go about studying it.
While my data set is limited, itās odd how many scientists Iāve come across who suppose an infinite number of objects in space is possible.
To say what science is, they should be able to say what it is not.
Actually, I think some of us are doing this through the back door. When we left our former church, we wrote our pastors. In our clarification for leaving, we included not only the churchās association with AIG, but AIGās alteration of the Gospel, which is going to speak more loudly to the pastors than any proscience argument. And in our case, it was the honester explanation.
I am frustrated by YEC, but Iāve lived among it probably my whole life. When acceptance of it is tied to the Gospel, we have changed the Gospel, particularly in the minds of calvinists.
So, indirectly, we were
In a way that will speak to them more than actual lab practice.
We pointed out that while Ken Ham classifies us as compromised Christians, which I read as not Christians, the Holy Spirit testifies differently to us.
I have been praying that the point takes hold. There is a lot going on there right now (as I think at many many churches). SO there is a lot of message noise. But the assistant pastor, who believes the dinosaurs/dragons nonsense, has built a lot of his thinking on AIGās fallacious model. I hope he recovers, when he finds itās false.
1 Like
What scientists are you talking about? Scientists already say what isnāt science. Intelligent Design and astrology are examples.
1 Like
Iād be interested in seeing a survey. Iām not lying about my experience. Whether they were legitimate published peer reviewed scientists is doubtful. But they were vastly more knowledgeable than me about science.
I think itās a real offense there is non-scientific knowledge about the world, so thereās a strong desire to argue and prove it uncertain.
All of the astrophysicists I have heard all say that matter and energy are finite within our universe. Otherwise, they couldnāt talk about how matter and energy are divided between different types of matter and energy. If matter is infinite, then how could they say that dark matter makes up a certain percentage of all matter?
I will say that if you are looking for dogmatic statements about knowledge then science is not the best place to look. Scientists usually have the humility to admit that they might be wrong.
Exactly. And since pastors do a lot of counseling, they should be familiar with signs of mental illness so they can do referrals.
The mainline churches have a better understanding of science than other churches. This is especially true of the Roman Catholic and Anglican/Episcopal churches. The Anglican/Episcopal churches have a number of ordained scientists. The Catholic church runs an observatory.
An Episcopal pathologist, Ed Friedlander MD, has put together a list of scientific terms/concepts he thinks clergy should be familiar with. But Holey Moley it is a tad ambitious!
2 Likes
If nothing else, Friedlanderās list demonstrates why any non-scientist should exercise humility about their own ability to judge the rightness or wrongness of any scientific claim, as well as on what basis such claims can be judged. Which is not philosophically or theologically.
2 Likes
So they probably werenāt scientists at all?
Itās also interesting to see how they handle the question of whether space is infinitely divisible.
The Planck units have been around for a while. For example, the Planck length is the smallest anything can be. This means space is not infinitely divisible.
https://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2013/today13-11-01_NutshellReadMore.html
1 Like