Bill Powers 2008-06-04 3
From Summa Bergania
Date: Wed Jun 4, 2008 10:13 pm
From: Bill Powers
To: David Bergan
Subject: Re: Christianity and Conflict
David:
I agree that something like the problem of the "self" is problematic, although I think I would be more specific. If by self, we mean a sense of ourselves, while this may be a problem for evolutionary theory (cf. Athony O'Hear in Beyond Evolution), I'm not certain it is a problem specifically for science. We could imagine an algorithm by which something like consciousness could exist, if by that we mean a "second look", e.g., by storing our thoughts and actions in a memory bank and then examining periodically the stored data (cf., Gibert Ryle in Concept of the Mind).
But if by the self we mean some sort of agency, even some concept of free will (even it only exists for some acts and thoughts), then I agree. As you say, if somehow there is an agent that in some respect is outside the causal nexus, then science has a real problem it seems. I call this "the problem of the scientist." For if the nature of the scientist is inconsistent with science, then the scientist must exist outside of science and science cannot explain everything in the natural world; and if we require that nothing be outside of science, then the scientist cannot exist, and there can be no science.
Let me end with yet another question. Why should we care that science and Christianity are in conflict? Obviously we do for then there would be no conflict. But why do we?
We may care both for ourselves and for the sake of others, and the principal reason, I think, is doubt.
Here are some things that I have doubted:
1) that there is a personal, almighty god.
2) that the Red Sea actually parted for the Israelites and that God led them through the desert for 40 years.
3) that God hears me when I pray.
4) that there is an afterlife.
5) that Noah got all those animals into the Ark.
6) that axe heads float on water
7) that Paul raised someone from the dead.
8) that the Bible contains no actual revelation from God, but only mens imagined thoughts about God.
But I hasten to add that I have also doubted
1) evolutionary theory
2) cosmological theories, including the Big Bang
3) any naturalistic explanation of the mind
Doubting and skepticism is facile. Is the cause of my doubting the eight things that I have listed above due to modern science and its derivatives? This is difficult to say. The cause could just as easily be the nature of sinful man as it is that of a particular era.
Many of the things I doubt are associated with Scripture. One might almost say that the conflict is between science and Scripture. This conflict producing a host of Scriptural attitudes, e.g., an inerrant and infallible Word, God's Word as distinct from man's Word (not all of Scripture is revelation), imaginative metaphorical hermeneutics (the problem of genre). It might also, but less frequently, produce a host of attitudes towards science (e.g., critical realism, instrumentalism)
The more one founds faith in reason, the more susceptible faith is to science. The more faith is founded on a particular Biblical perspective, the more susceptible to science. Even if faith is, as I believe, irrational and conditional upon nothing, there are still facts that if false make faith foolish (I Co 15:16-19). On the other hand, the more one withdraws Scripture from conflict with science, the lower the content and quality of Scripture, to the point that nothing may be left of it.
That's it for now.
bill
