Embedded Files
( - previous issue - / - next issue - )
AR 25:19 - Getting Christianity and "science" right
In this issue:
ATHEISM - asserting that "morals cannot be based on faith in God"
SCIENCE - no "conflict between faith and science" when science is properly understood
WORLDVIEW - where Scripture is rejected, use "the epistemological theories of truth"
Apologia Report 25:19 (1,476)
May 13, 2020
ATHEISM
What It Means to Be Moral: Why Religion Is Not Necessary for Living an Ethical Life, by Phil Zuckerman [1] -- the publisher says "Zuckerman argues that morality does not come from God. Rather, it comes from us: our brains, our evolutionary past, our ongoing cultural development, our social experiences, and our ability to reason, reflect, and be sensitive to the suffering of others. ... In short, we need to look to our fellow humans and within ourselves for moral progress and ethical action."
Booklist (Aug 1 '19): "Zuckerman's three-part overview of secular morality first explains why morals cannot be based on faith in God.... The book's second part maintains that what constitutes moral behavior is common knowledge.... The section finally lists the 'Secular Seven' virtues: freethinking, living in reality, here-and-nowness, acceptance of existential mystery, scientific empiricism, cosmopolitanism, empathy. The last part, 'Challenges to Secular Morality,' discusses immorality, genocide, secular responses to immorality, and moral relativism. ... Where necessary, he evinces other implications; for instance, reading deeper into findings indicating churchgoers are happier than nonchurchgoers to argue that social connection is as important as belief in God in producing happiness."
Kirkus (Jul 1 '19) reports that Zuckerman <www.bit.ly/3fJWxSn> "asserts that morality based on obedience to God 'limits our capacity for empathy and compassion, stymies our ability to take responsibility for our choices and actions, obfuscates the naturally evolved sources of ethical conduct, and ultimately thwarts moral progress' in 'confronting the dire problems of the day.' ... Although Zuckerman concedes that not all religious people base their ethical decisions solely on God's teachings, he criticizes dogmatic fundamentalists, for whom faith is the mainstay of their lives, as abdicating moral responsibility to assess and act on ethical issues. ... A thoughtful perspective on humans' capacity for moral behavior."
Publishers Weekly (Jun 24 '19) summarizes this as "a prodigiously well-supported argument against religion in this meticulous but narrow work. ... Moving the aim implied by his subtitle, he claims that 'it is theism, rather than religion... that comprises the true target of this book.' Theism, in his argument, is inherently not loving and compassionate, since God's creations include as much misery as joy - he cites smallpox, which has killed 300 million people throughout history, as a primary example. ... Zuckerman lines up all the arguments against belief from the well-known Socratic dialogue, through the Enlightenment philosophers, and into the modern era. ... Unfortunately, Zuckerman never seriously grapples with the allure or longevity of religious traditions, which limits the scope of his argument. While this is a comprehensive introduction to religious skepticism, Zuckerman's conclusions will likely only convince fellow secularists."
To learn more about atheism and morality from our past issues, visit <www.bit.ly/2T27yok>
---
SCIENCE
"The Soul of Science" by Thomas S. Buchanan, George W. Laird Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Biomedical Engineering at the University of Delaware -- begins: "Our culture often portrays science and Christianity as being in conflict. This, I believe, is because too few people really understand what science is."
Buchanan includes one especially "egregious" example: "The Washington Post published an article on August 10, 2016, with the headline, 'The seas aren't just rising, scientists say - it's worse than that. They are speeding up.' He explains that 'the data show that the model is wrong, yet the Washington Post's editors published a headline that drew the opposite conclusion because they believe the model more than the data. For them, reality is less important than their pre-conceived notions. ...
"The fundamental nature of modern science is that it is rooted in having at least one hypothesis that is both (a) important and (b) testable (and repeatable). ...
"Given this understanding of science, I have never encountered a scientific hypothesis that conflicts with Christianity. ...
"Why, then, do we hear so much about a conflict between faith and science? Mostly because we do not properly understand science. Most examples of this conflict do not involve scientific studies, that is, studies with scientific hypotheses. ...
"Science is based on educated guesses that can be verified. ...
"Science is terribly misunderstood. Take a topic that is popular today: global warming. ... [T]he hypothesis has been renamed 'climate change.' ...
"What is actually meant by 'climate change' is that man-made pollutants have caused significant and substantial changes in the world's climate. That is an interesting hypothesis. But, as far as I know, no studies have been proposed that would determine: (a) how much of any particular weather change can be attributed to man, or (b) whether any specific changes in human activity would have a mitigating effect on such climate change.
"Instead, the approach employed to study the question involves the use of computer models. ...
"This is not really 'science,' but a type of mathematical curve-fitting. I do a lot of mathematical modeling in my own research, and I know it is a legitimate way to study things, but that doesn't make it science. ...
"This is actually rather odd, because I know of no other topic on which people's opinions are based on their belief in the accuracy or inaccuracy of computer models. ...
"Thus, there is very little 'science' in 'climate science,' and until this is understood, talk about what 'scientists' believe about such things is meaningless. Most of what we read today from 'scientists' is not really science, just opinion (and often politics). Moreover, even when an actual scientist expresses an opinion, it does not mean he did a scientific study to verify it. All scientists have opinions, but not all do good science to prove their theories. Scientists in general are opinionated people, as are many others, especially those with Ph.D.s in any field. But having opinions is not the same thing as doing good science. ...
"This is a problem with what passes for modern science in the press. It is dogma wrapped in a scientific veneer. ...
"Real science should be based on hypothesis-testing, not a priori dogma. There is nothing in the former approach that contradicts the faith because real science is the study of a universe that has been created by God." Salvo, Issue #50 - 2019, <www.bit.ly/3f1wUMx>
In March Apologia reviewed the claims of climate change theorists for our donors. To see this for yourself, visit <www.bit.ly/38P2yIS>
---
WORLDVIEW
The Biblical Worldview: An Apologetic, by Daniel C. Juster [2], founding president of the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations and founder of Tikkun Ministries International <www.bit.ly/2zCN7Y1> -- the review by Alan J. Pihringer (Pastor, Harvest Baptist Church, Harvest, AL) explains that the first of the book's four sections begins with "brief summaries and critiques of the more renowned apologetic methods." Juster emphasizes the "correspondence and pragmatic theories of truth (strangely, though, he ignores the coherence theory of truth even though one could argue it is the basis of several of his truth tests), concluding that the correspondence theory of truth gives the strongest argumentation since truth is based on reality - the way things really are." Near his conclusion, Pihringer adds that Juster's "separation of consistency and coherence as separate tests (where the two are often confused with one another) I believe is an important distinction that is too often overlooked." On the other hand, "it would have behooved him to have demonstrated how ... other worldviews failed to pass the tests of consistency, coherence, and comprehensiveness."
"The second section gives a cultural argument for the validity of Christianity, wherein the truthfulness of a worldview is reflected in the ability to consistently live out the implications of the worldview in a satisfying and fulfilling way. (Interestingly, I would argue that this has a foundation in the pragmatic theory of truth that Juster seemingly dismisses.) Building on much of the foundation lain by Francis Schaeffer, he contends that since the modern secular worldview is false, the only alternative is the biblical worldview. ...
"The third section addresses common objections to the biblical worldview. Juster first addresses the oft-raised objection based on the problem of evil. He reviews several answers given by philosophers and theologians throughout history that defend God's power and benevolence against such an attack, including: Gordon Clark's definition of good as whatever God does or decrees, Gottfried Leibnitz's best of all possible worlds theory, Frederick Tennant's argument for the necessity of evil for moral development, among others. ...
"In the fourth and final section, Juster offers positive argumentation for the truthfulness of the Christian worldview. He begins with evidence from creation, surveying the classical ontological, cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments, before then delving into more specific defenses against opposing worldviews."
Pihringer concludes: "One strength of Juster's work is the recognition that, while the Christian foundation for truth is Scripture alone, when interacting with those who do not hold to such beliefs a common ground is found in the epistemological theories of truth. ... A second strength is the defense of Christianity as an entire system of beliefs - a worldview." <www.go.aws/2SoOXm3>
-------
SOURCES: Monographs
1 - What It Means to Be Moral: Why Religion Is Not Necessary for Living an Ethical Life, by Phil Zuckerman (Counterpoint, 2019, hardcover, 400 pages) <www.amzn.to/3aM8Tpm>
2 - The Biblical Worldview: An Apologetic, Updated ed., by Daniel C. Juster (Hamilton, 2019, paperback, 340 pages) <www.amzn.to/3bUtUPU>
------
( - previous issue - / - next issue - )
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse