Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Steve Fuller asks, Why shouldn’t religious commitments influence one’s science?

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
File:Aj-ayer-philosopher.jpg
AJ Ayer:Was he right?

Agnostic Warwick U sociologist Steve Fuller, author of Dissent over Descent (2008) offers:

One wishes that the US legal system exercised the same diligence in authenticating people’s religious beliefs s their scientific beliefs. Ayala, Miller and Collins claim that their scientific inquiries are driven by their faith in God. Yet, as they are the first to admit, the science they do is indistinguishable from those who do not share that faith.One might reasonably wonder: how exactly does their faith influence their science, especially given the enormous import of their religious commitments? Would it not be reasonable to expect their Christian beliefs, assuming they have some cognitive content, to colour the theories they propose and the inferences they draw from the evidence? If not, why should we think that their Christianity has any impact on their science whatsoever – simply because they say so?

Perhaps logical positivists like A.J. Ayer were right, after all, when they dismissed religious utterances as no more than emotional outbursts.

In any case, theistic evolution appears to be the kind of religion that even Richard Dawkins could love, since it appears to exact no psychic cost from its scientific adherents. Their religious beliefs spin as decorate but cognitively idle wheels.

What follows? Not necessarily that theistic evolutionists are liars. But if not, then either their theism must be very weak or it is held in a state of captivity, as if they fear its public expression would invite persecution. (pp. 108-9)

Note: When Ayala received the Templeton Prize in 2010, he refused to talk about his religious beliefs, but presumably Fuller’s comments apply to Miller and Collins who explicitly say they are Christians.

For a curious story about A.J. Ayer, go here.

Comments
For StephenB and bornagain77, relative to views such as found here (taken according to bornagain77 from Robert Clark: "However we may interpret the fact scientific development has only occurred in a Christian culture." Stark says pretty much the same thing. Although a few historians (esp the late Stanley Jaki) argued for the "strong form" of this claim, i.e., that without Christianity we wouldn't have science, very few historians agree with this. I don't either. Stark, who is a sociologist rather than an historian of early modern science (the relevant period), gives readers wrong impression the impression that historians of science generally agree that Christianity "caused" modern science. This is quite inaccurate. It is true that many historians see important roles for religion in this phenomenon--I am one of them, and I've written about this more than once. But it is not at all accurate to imply (as Stark does) that there is a consensus that Christianity "caused" modern science. It did not, and there is no such consensus. In other words, he overstates the case for the opposite of the "warfare" view of the history of science and religion, which is the topic for much of the relevant chapter (that part is very well done). The story of early modern science is complicated, and to look for one single cause of it is rather like having a one-legged stool. It won't stand up. Another problem with his position, apart from being overstated, is that it just fails to recognize that Greek science was genuine science. He implies that David Lindberg supports his interpretation, but Lindberg would argue just the opposite: that there was genuine science in the ancient world, long before Philoponus, and that Christianity did not cause modern science. I agree with Lindberg on both counts, although I probably assign a larger influence to religious factors in shaping aspects of modern science (not "causing" it) than he does. Read Stark with interest, but with some caution. So, StephenB, I'm not denying "a fact of history." Indeed, IMO, the facts are that Aristotle, Galen, and Ptolemy did genuine science, long before any Christians were engaged in scientific activities. I don't buy Jaki's view (e.g.) that science was "stillborn" in antiquity for theological reasons. If you find Stark (whose book is a tertiary source and who is not trained in the relevant fields) persuasive, then you find him persuasive. At least realize, however, that most scholars who know the primary documents don't find Stark's claim very persuasive.Ted Davis
May 5, 2011
May
05
May
5
05
2011
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT
StephenB @ 19: What?? Have you ever been to a psychiatrist? And who doesn't believe that mind exists? Isn't the issue just whether it exists independently of the brain or not?zeroseven
May 4, 2011
May
05
May
4
04
2011
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT
---Ted: "IMO, it’s a mistake either to overstate connections between Christianity and science or to deny them entirely. bornagain77 seems to do the former." I am very surprised to witness a historian like yourself deny a fact of history. --"Because God is perfect, his handiwork functions in accord with immutable principles. By the full use of our God-given powers of reason and observation, it ought to be possible to discover these principles. --These were the crucial ideas that explain why science arose in Christian Europe and no where else." — Rodney StarkStephenB
May 4, 2011
May
05
May
4
04
2011
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
--Ted: "I think sometimes that Christians (and others) believe that Christians should do science (or medicine) differently from non-Christians. It’s one thing to claim that, in some instances, religious beliefs have (or might have) influenced a given scientist to draw a certain scientific conclusion, or to design an experiment in a certain way; but, it’s another thing to say or to imply that there is or ought to be a “Christian biology,” or (to borrow a term from Hitler) a “Jewish physics,” or for that matter an “atheist meteorology.” Christians should, indeed, do science differently that non-Christians, and on just about every front. I could provide a hundred examples, but will limit myself to one: Secular psychiatrists, whose medical science is informed by the Darwinst philosophy that brains exist and that minds do not, rely on chemicals to alter the chemistry of the former and make no attempt to heal the latter.StephenB
May 4, 2011
May
05
May
4
04
2011
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
Ted Davis, actually I was reserved!!! The 'Christian connection' to the birth of MODERN science is well known. "However we may interpret the fact scientific development has only occurred in a Christian culture. The ancients had brains as good as ours. In all civilizations, Babylonia, Egypt, Greece, India, Rome, Persia, China and so on, science developed to a certain point and then stopped. It is easy to argue speculatively that science might have been able to develop in the absence of Christianity, but in fact, it never did." - Robert Clarkbornagain77
May 4, 2011
May
05
May
4
04
2011
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT
It's one thing to say (as I have) that Christian theology helped to shape modern science, such as by encouraging people to view nature as a contingent order that has to be studied by a combination of reason and experience. It's another thing entirely to say that Christianity gave birth to science--as if there really was nothing worth labeling science prior to medieval Europe. As I say in the essay on the Faraday web site (see above), there were no Christian natural philosophers prior to John Philoponus; and, science existed already at that point for a long time. IMO, it's a mistake either to overstate connections between Christianity and science or to deny them entirely. bornagain77 seems to do the former.Ted Davis
May 4, 2011
May
05
May
4
04
2011
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
a few notes of related interest: Christianity Gave Birth To Each Scientific Discipline - Dr. Henry Fritz Schaefer - video http://vimeo.com/16523153 Christianity and The Birth of Science - Michael Bumbulis, Ph.D Excerpt: Furthermore, many of these founders of science lived at a time when others publicly expressed views quite contrary to Christianity - Hume, Hobbes, Darwin, etc. When Boyle argues against Hobbe's materialism or Kelvin argues against Darwin's assumptions, you don't have a case of "closet atheists." http://ldolphin.org/bumbulis/ Dr. Stephen Meyer on the Christian Origin of Science - video http://www.thetruthproject.org/about/culturefocus/A000000287.cfm John Lennox - Science Is Impossible Without God - Quotes - video remix http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6287271/ A very strong piece of suggestive evidence, which persuasively hints at a unique relationship that man has with 'The Word' of John 1:1, is found in these following articles which point out the fact that ‘coincidental scientific discoveries’ are far more prevalent than what should be expected from a materialistic perspective,: In the Air – Who says big ideas are rare? by Malcolm Gladwell Excerpt: This phenomenon of simultaneous discovery—what science historians call “multiples”—turns out to be extremely common. One of the first comprehensive lists of multiples was put together by William Ogburn and Dorothy Thomas, in 1922, and they found a hundred and forty-eight major scientific discoveries that fit the multiple pattern. Newton and Leibniz both discovered calculus. Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace both discovered evolution. Three mathematicians “invented” decimal fractions. Oxygen was discovered by Joseph Priestley, in Wiltshire, in 1774, and by Carl Wilhelm Scheele, in Uppsala, a year earlier. Color photography was invented at the same time by Charles Cros and by Louis Ducos du Hauron, in France. Logarithms were invented by John Napier and Henry Briggs in Britain, and by Joost Bürgi in Switzerland. ,,, For Ogburn and Thomas, the sheer number of multiples could mean only one thing: scientific discoveries must, in some sense, be inevitable. List of multiple discoveries Excerpt: Historians and sociologists have remarked on the occurrence, in science, of "multiple independent discovery". Robert K. Merton defined such "multiples" as instances in which similar discoveries are made by scientists working independently of each other.,,, Multiple independent discovery, however, is not limited to only a few historic instances involving giants of scientific research. Merton believed that it is multiple discoveries, rather than unique ones, that represent the common pattern in science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multiple_discoveries The following video is far more direct in establishing the 'spiritual' link to man's ability to learn new information, in that it shows that the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) scores for students showed a steady decline, for seventeen years from the top spot or near the top spot in the world, after the removal of prayer from the public classroom by the Supreme Court in 1963. Whereas the SAT scores for private Christian schools have consistently remained at the top, or near the top, spot in the world: The Real Reason American Education Has Slipped – David Barton – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4318930 These following studies, though of materialistic bent, offer strong support that Humans are extremely unique in this 'advanced information capacity' when compared to animals: Darwin’s mistake: Explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds: Excerpt: There is a profound functional discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. We argue that this discontinuity pervades nearly every domain of cognition and runs much deeper than even the spectacular scaffolding provided by language or culture can explain. We hypothesize that the cognitive discontinuity between human and nonhuman animals is largely due to the degree to which human and nonhuman minds are able to approximate the higher-order, systematic, relational capabilities of a physical symbol system (i.e. we are able to understand information). http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/Penn-01062006/Referees/Penn-01062006_bbs-preprint.htm Origin of the Mind: Marc Hauser Excerpt: "Researchers have found some of the building blocks of human cognition in other species. But these building blocks make up only the cement footprint of the skyscraper that is the human mind",,, https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ic-all-the-way-down-the-grand-human-evolutionary-discontinuity-and-probabilistic-resources/#comment-341275 Earliest humans not so different from us, research suggests - February 2011 Excerpt: Shea argues that comparing the behavior of our most ancient ancestors to Upper Paleolithic Europeans holistically and ranking them in terms of their "behavioral modernity" is a waste of time. There are no such things as modern humans, Shea argues, just Homo sapiens populations with a wide range of behavioral variability. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-earliest-humans.htmlbornagain77
May 4, 2011
May
05
May
4
04
2011
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT
a few notes of related interest: Christianity Gave Birth To Each Scientific Discipline - Dr. Henry Fritz Schaefer - video http://vimeo.com/16523153 Christianity and The Birth of Science - Michael Bumbulis, Ph.D Excerpt: Furthermore, many of these founders of science lived at a time when others publicly expressed views quite contrary to Christianity - Hume, Hobbes, Darwin, etc. When Boyle argues against Hobbe's materialism or Kelvin argues against Darwin's assumptions, you don't have a case of "closet atheists." http://ldolphin.org/bumbulis/ Dr. Stephen Meyer on the Christian Origin of Science - video http://www.thetruthproject.org/about/culturefocus/A000000287.cfm John Lennox - Science Is Impossible Without God - Quotes - video remix http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6287271/ A very strong piece of suggestive evidence, which persuasively hints at a unique relationship that man has with 'The Word' of John 1:1, is found in these following articles which point out the fact that ‘coincidental scientific discoveries’ are far more prevalent than what should be expected from a materialistic perspective,: In the Air – Who says big ideas are rare? by Malcolm Gladwell Excerpt: This phenomenon of simultaneous discovery—what science historians call “multiples”—turns out to be extremely common. One of the first comprehensive lists of multiples was put together by William Ogburn and Dorothy Thomas, in 1922, and they found a hundred and forty-eight major scientific discoveries that fit the multiple pattern. Newton and Leibniz both discovered calculus. Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace both discovered evolution. Three mathematicians “invented” decimal fractions. Oxygen was discovered by Joseph Priestley, in Wiltshire, in 1774, and by Carl Wilhelm Scheele, in Uppsala, a year earlier. Color photography was invented at the same time by Charles Cros and by Louis Ducos du Hauron, in France. Logarithms were invented by John Napier and Henry Briggs in Britain, and by Joost Bürgi in Switzerland. ,,, For Ogburn and Thomas, the sheer number of multiples could mean only one thing: scientific discoveries must, in some sense, be inevitable. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/12/080512fa_fact_gladwell/?currentPage=all List of multiple discoveries Excerpt: Historians and sociologists have remarked on the occurrence, in science, of "multiple independent discovery". Robert K. Merton defined such "multiples" as instances in which similar discoveries are made by scientists working independently of each other.,,, Multiple independent discovery, however, is not limited to only a few historic instances involving giants of scientific research. Merton believed that it is multiple discoveries, rather than unique ones, that represent the common pattern in science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multiple_discoveries The following video is far more direct in establishing the 'spiritual' link to man's ability to learn new information, in that it shows that the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) scores for students showed a steady decline, for seventeen years from the top spot or near the top spot in the world, after the removal of prayer from the public classroom by the Supreme Court in 1963. Whereas the SAT scores for private Christian schools have consistently remained at the top, or near the top, spot in the world: The Real Reason American Education Has Slipped – David Barton – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4318930 These following studies, though of materialistic bent, offer strong support that Humans are extremely unique in this 'advanced information capacity' when compared to animals: Darwin’s mistake: Explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds: Excerpt: There is a profound functional discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. We argue that this discontinuity pervades nearly every domain of cognition and runs much deeper than even the spectacular scaffolding provided by language or culture can explain. We hypothesize that the cognitive discontinuity between human and nonhuman animals is largely due to the degree to which human and nonhuman minds are able to approximate the higher-order, systematic, relational capabilities of a physical symbol system (i.e. we are able to understand information). http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/Penn-01062006/Referees/Penn-01062006_bbs-preprint.htm Origin of the Mind: Marc Hauser Excerpt: "Researchers have found some of the building blocks of human cognition in other species. But these building blocks make up only the cement footprint of the skyscraper that is the human mind",,, https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ic-all-the-way-down-the-grand-human-evolutionary-discontinuity-and-probabilistic-resources/#comment-341275 Earliest humans not so different from us, research suggests - February 2011 Excerpt: Shea argues that comparing the behavior of our most ancient ancestors to Upper Paleolithic Europeans holistically and ranking them in terms of their "behavioral modernity" is a waste of time. There are no such things as modern humans, Shea argues, just Homo sapiens populations with a wide range of behavioral variability. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-earliest-humans.htmlbornagain77
May 4, 2011
May
05
May
4
04
2011
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
I imagine an orthodox Christian may say that God placed all of the patterns, an the reasons of why we could think so could range from philosophical reasons to revelatory reasons to even scientific reasons.
Ok, but that's not really saying anything about God or the patterns. If there's no reason to connect the patterns to God -- then there's no reason to talk about patterns. And just mentioning God in this context is something added for no reason. If the patterns, however, say something about necessary design -- then that's ID and not TE.
I could easily ask what reason we have to believe that the patterns are unguided and without design. Some replies would come in, but at the end of the day I think inferring a mind, God’s mind, would be the best option.
Yes, but again that says something about the patterns -- and that's the design argument.Proponentist
May 4, 2011
May
05
May
4
04
2011
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
I think sometimes that Christians (and others) believe that Christians should do science (or medicine) differently from non-Christians.
I would hope that Christians would not do medicine the way abortionists do.Proponentist
May 4, 2011
May
05
May
4
04
2011
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
Question for Bevets: if you break your leg skiing, how much does it matter to you whether the attending physician is a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Jew, an agnostic, a Christian, or an atheist? If you pray for healing in this situation, is God's action detectable by the physician? Alternatively, should we be worried at all of the (methodological) atheism that goes on at NOAA or NASA? I think sometimes that Christians (and others) believe that Christians should do science (or medicine) differently from non-Christians. It's one thing to claim that, in some instances, religious beliefs have (or might have) influenced a given scientist to draw a certain scientific conclusion, or to design an experiment in a certain way; but, it's another thing to say or to imply that there is or ought to be a "Christian biology," or (to borrow a term from Hitler) a "Jewish physics," or for that matter an "atheist meteorology."Ted Davis
May 4, 2011
May
05
May
4
04
2011
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
How do you reconcile that with Darwinian theory? What patterns did God place? Why do we think God was involved in those patterns? I don't know about reconciling such with "Darwinian theory", since said theory seems to specifically build in a claim that no one - not even God - directs anything at all. But the bare idea of selection + variation? It seems to be easily 'reconciled', since selection + variation is just yet another tool available to a designer. I imagine an orthodox Christian may say that God placed all of the patterns, an the reasons of why we could think so could range from philosophical reasons to revelatory reasons to even scientific reasons. I could easily ask what reason we have to believe that the patterns are unguided and without design. Some replies would come in, but at the end of the day I think inferring a mind, God's mind, would be the best option. bevets, There are numerous problems with Provine's view. For one, it's not as if theists wouldn't have a reply to Provine's questions - was he expecting the morals to come from "The Universe"? Further, he himself said that God gives plenty outside of the laws of nature on his own example - the action is possibly undetectable (and then Provine would mean scientifically), but it's not non-existent. Really, Provine's a flake on topics like this.nullasalus
May 4, 2011
May
05
May
4
04
2011
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT
A widespread theological view now exists saying that God started off the world, props it up and works through laws of nature, very subtly, so subtly that its action is undetectable. But that kind of God is effectively no different to my mind than atheism. To anyone who adopts this view I say, ‘Great, we’re in the same camp; now where do we get our morals if the universe just goes grinding on as it does?’ This kind of God does nothing outside of the laws of nature, gives us no immortality, no foundation for morals, or any of the things that we want from a God and from religion. ~ William Provinebevets
May 4, 2011
May
05
May
4
04
2011
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
As creatures made in God’s image, we can understand many of the patterns that God placed in the world, but those patterns must be discovered by observation, not dictated by human reason.
How do you reconcile that with Darwinian theory? What patterns did God place? Why do we think God was involved in those patterns?
God is free to create in ways that cannot be predicted, so we should not be astonished that nature sometimes does astonishing things.
To be astonished, in this case, means encountering the unexpected. Since evolutionary laws govern everything in biology, what reason do we find for astonishment? I will change Mr. Polkinghorne's quote slightly:
[Life on earth] ‘is not only rationally transparent’, he argues, but also ‘rationally beautiful, rewarding scientists with the experience of wonder at the marvelous order which is revealed through the labours of their research’. The [nature of biological forms] ‘have a character that seems to point the enquirer beyond what science itself is capable of telling, making a materialist acceptance of them as unexplained brute facts an intellectually unsatisfying stance to take’ (pp. 90-91).
The fact that [life exists] at all ‘is not a mere happy accident, but it is a sign that the mind of the Creator lies behind the wonderful order that scientists are privileged to explore’ (p. 37).
Proponentist
May 4, 2011
May
05
May
4
04
2011
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
The best book-length study of the influence of religious beliefs on the career and attitudes of a modern scientist that I have yet seen is this: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo5485363.html It's well worth clicking on the button there for "review quotes," in order to get a sense of some of the specific things Stanley does in this book--and to see how well it has been received by some of the "big names" in HPS (no, I'm not including myself in that category). I don't know who the reviewer was for "Choice," (I doubt that it was someone who knows too much about either HPS or the modern religion science "dialogue") but their comment is provocative: "Though very little seems to have changed in the debates, in actuality, there are no scientists of Eddington's stature today who dare to speak about their religious convictions as openly as Eddington did without risking their professional reputation." This may seem to support Steve Fuller's comment, but my point is that there *are* TEs who do this, regardless of the risk. Whether any are of Eddington's stature is questionable, of course--that depends on how one ranks Eddington vis-a-vis a given modern example. But, I would suggest that Simon Conway Morris might be a pertinent example; he doesn't give a fig about the risks, and I do think he's a top scientist. Ditto someone like Bill Newsome. If we're less concerned with the eminence of the scientist, relative to Eddington, then it's easy for me to offer dozens of examples.Ted Davis
May 4, 2011
May
05
May
4
04
2011
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
As I've said, it's not easy to find examples in the modern period, in which specific religious beliefs influenced that actual practice of science. The best work I have yet seen on this is presently unpublished and I am not at liberty to share any details; the relevant publisher knows the level of my enthusiasm for the manuscript. I heard a fascinating paper last summer at the ASA meeting on just this topic. Jason Rampelt, a young historian of science who worked on a major project of this sort (the influence of religious beliefs on science) as a post-doc with the Faraday Institute (Cambridge UK), gave a lovely paper about two leading neuroscientists--Sir John Eccles and Donald M MacKay--and how their quite different sets of Christian beliefs (Eccles a Roman Catholic and MacKay a Calvinist) affected their scientific conclusions. I'll try to insert the link for the conference program (with the abstracts), but it might not work and it might not be publicly accessible. Here goes: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/meetings/dc2010/DC_abstractbook.pdf.Ted Davis
May 4, 2011
May
05
May
4
04
2011
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT
In the modern period (which depends as I said on the science and on the location), it's esp difficult to show such influences--but, it's possible in some cases. And, in some of those cases it may be that atheism or a faith other than Christianity was exerting the influence. We are only just beginning to understand the ways in which religious scientists in the modern period have seen their faith (explicitly) inform their views of science as a whole (i.e., in relation to other ways of knowing, including religion) and also of specific conclusions within a given science. The former is a lot easier to document than the latter, but some instances of the latter have been shown. My own work in the modern period has been on aspects of the former, including essays on eminent scientists such as Arthur Compton and Robert Millikan. (Compton, incidentally, used the term "intelligent design" in a favorable manner in 1940. For details, go to http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2009/PSCF9-09Davis2.pdf. To elaborate on an earlier comment: Compton was obviously a TE, and I can't find any evidence that hh held his theism either weekly or placed it in captivity. Indeed, he made the decision to become a public intellectual, and a big part of that involved parading his religious convictions before a wide public audience.Ted Davis
May 4, 2011
May
05
May
4
04
2011
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
John Brooke has an extensive discussion of the ways in which religious beliefs might influence science in chap one of http://www.amazon.com/Science-Religion-Historical-Perspectives-Cambridge/dp/0521283744. My own, somewhat different (but still pretty similar) analysis is given in the book I just mentioned above. I see at least these possibilities for such an influence: Can science be done? (Is a science of nature possible?) The possibility question Why should science be done? The morality/motivation/ justification question How should science be done? The methodology/epistemology question What sorts of theories are acceptable? The regulative question I think that in principle (and we can show in practice) that religious beliefs can have some influence on science at these points. However, a clear and strong influence is not usually easy to demonstrate, in any historical period. I would caution anyone from concluding, as a result, either that (a) religion just has no influence on science; or (b) most scientists in most periods must hold their theism either weekly or else place it in a state of captivity.Ted Davis
May 4, 2011
May
05
May
4
04
2011
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
I've done some work myself on the influence of specific theological beliefs on the actual content of science, particularly on conceptions of scientific knowledge (which I include as part of the actual content of science). I mention this briefly in a summary fashion at http://www.testoffaith.com/resources/resource.aspx?id=623, which has recently been serialized by BioLogos. The most detailed treatment of my ideas about this is my contribution to http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195115570/qid=924281983/sr=1-2/002-3016226-2224007; for an abstract, see http://home.messiah.edu/~tdavis/Foster.html.Ted Davis
May 4, 2011
May
05
May
4
04
2011
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
Anyone interested in the "big question" of science, secularization, and the "privatization" of scientists' religious beliefs (which I take as an historical fact), should read at least these two things: (1) the chapter ("Myth 25. That Modern Science Has Secularized Western Culture") by John Hedley Brooke in http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?recid=29263&content=toc (2) the chapter by Ronald Numbers ("Epilogue: Science, Secularization, and Privatization") in http://www.peterlang.com/index.cfm?event=cmp.cst.ebooks.datasheet&id=51803&concordeid=58120Ted Davis
May 4, 2011
May
05
May
4
04
2011
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
This helps, thank you. I'll have to look this up. I was in the middle of typing a lengthy post with some thoughts about the larger topic, but I accidentally closed that window and lost the whole thing before I could post it. The short version is that you can show such influences in certain historical instances, but that it's much harder to do this in the modern period; what counts as the "modern period" will vary, depending on which science one is talking about and which geographical location one is talking about. I'll say a bit more about this in a separate post below. Here, I'll just register strong disagreement with this part of the quotation above: "In any case, theistic evolution appears to be the kind of religion that even Richard Dawkins could love, since it appears to exact no psychic cost from its scientific adherents. Their religious beliefs spin as decorate but cognitively idle wheels. What follows? Not necessarily that theistic evolutionists are liars. But if not, then either their theism must be very weak or it is held in a state of captivity, as if they fear its public expression would invite persecution." IMO, this just one more variety of the common claim that advocates of TE are either "mushy accommodationists" (a term that has actually been used) or spineless jellyfish. I've addressed this here an on the old ASA list numerous times, I lack the time to regurgitate all of my points yet again, and I find it tiresome to hear it once again. I haven't met very many advocates of TE--and I probably know more of them, quite well, than Steve Fuller knows even casually--who fit the commentary in the second of the two paragraphs I just quoted.Ted Davis
May 4, 2011
May
05
May
4
04
2011
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
Hello Ted, I might be wrong about this, but I think the entire indented text above is what Dr Fuller has said, and I think that text came form Dissent on pages 108 and 109.Upright BiPed
May 4, 2011
May
05
May
4
04
2011
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
I'd like to see specifically what Steve Fuller said about this; no link is given to another story. If it's in his book, Dissent Over Descent, which I do not own, I would appreciate having a reference to specific pages to study.Ted Davis
May 4, 2011
May
05
May
4
04
2011
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
1 2 3