Are Theists Opposed to Science?

As a kid, I used to have this venting doll named Mr. Long-Legs.  When I was upset, I would take out my frustration by boxing Mr. Long-Legs into a state of doll oblivion. Bottom-line: If this were a Toy Story movie, the creepy music would start playing when I walked in the room.  (Woody: “Run, Mr. Long-Legs, run – Evil Luke’s coming!  There’s a snake in my boot! Buzz, stop pulling that string. We’re trying to do a movie here.”)

Now, in spite of appearances, I loved that doll.  But I discovered that, although I broke it with regularity, I could never figure out how to put it back together.  Ripping it apart was easy; patching it back together was beyond me.  I knew how to break a doll; but not to make one.

This past week, the Apologetic Professor was delighted to entertain a wonderful atheist blogger on our website, while I posted a guest piece on his blog. And one of the things this process has made totally salient to me is that it is far easier to rip up an argument into tiny pieces than it is to build a positive argument.  Every argument has a hole somewhere; there are no perfect arguments; human intellect is a glorious but imperfect instrument. A natural (and partially sad) consequence of this is that it is easier for us humans to tear down epistemological buildings than to build them.  (That is, unless the epistemological version of my Mom, who always patched up Mr. Long-Legs, comes walking through the door).

[The Apologetic Professor is proud to be the first blogger in recorded history to use the phrase “epistemological buildings.” We hope it catches on at parties and Billy Ray Cyrus concerts!]

So, if any of you want entertainment, you can go and watch my epistemological building get ripped down by some thoughtful atheists’ comments on Grundy’s blog.

Anyway, drawn as I am to things I am successful at for purely altruistic reasons, over the next few weeks I am not going to attempt to build anything constructive or positive.  Nay, good reader – I have tried and failed (like everyone else I know) at that.  Rather, I am instead going to do something I’m better at – I’m going to spend some time knocking down Grundy’s post on this blog.

To be fair, he’s doing the same thing to my post on his cite, which you can start here.

Now, before I start, I wanted to say how much I appreciate Grundy’s fair-minded approach to everything.  I disagree with him most of the time (and he with me), but I admire his thinking mind and seeking spirit.  The more I read his blog, the more like it – so if you want to read a thoughtful atheist, I’d highly recommend it (deityshmeity.com).

So, although I’m going to rebut some of what he said over the coming weeks in my usual cheeky and hyperbolic manner, I did want to publically acknowledge how much I appreciated the invitation to do this, and his fair-minded approach to the questions we are considering.

The changes in the new bill will end “the tricks-and-traps business free cheap viagra model that was designed to get consumers to accumulate a lot of interest,” said Ed Mierzwinski, who heads financial services matters for the consumer group U.S. You are advised to engage in foreplay tips to get relief from stress before lovemaking. order cialis It is important however that you get your Kamagra only from a trustworthy supplier If you find any unwanted change during the medication, stop it at once and cialis online best visit your physician to discuss the matter. Control any potential liver dysfunction in these areas, acupuncture positively affects blood pressure and body temperature, boosts immune system activity, and causes the body’s natural painkillers, such as cialis cialis uk endorphins, to be released. Enough of that!  Let’s start with something he said in an off-hand way early in his post, which he probably did not mean for me to take too seriously, but in the spirit of complete inequality (and laziness), it’s the first thing I’m attacking!

Grundy: The tendency for theists to deny science is a product of their need to cling to the dogma that runs counter to the way things are, or at the very least, the way things appear.

Apologetic Professor: The tendency for theists to deny science?  Theists largely created science.  Why would we deny it?

The fact that theists basically created science could be a socio-historical accident, of course; but I don’t think it’s entirely a coincidence. (Nor do I think it is entirely a coincidence that post-modern skepticism of science has reached its peak as theism in academia has declined).  In actuality, theism provides arguably the best epistemology for the growth of science.  In an atheistic world, for example, there is no necessary reason to assume that my mental mechanisms can accurately observe and encode the world. Indeed, the very statement (to take one example) “my shirt is made of cotton and not made of cement” is, in an atheistic world, simply a product of atoms and molecules and biological forces moving in my brain.  That statement existing in my brain is no different than the movement of the planets, or the processes that cause me to sleep or dislike eating rocks.  There is no reason to suppose that because that phrase appeared in my mind as a result of pre-determined mechanistic forces, that it is necessarily “true” in any meaningful sense. 

Nor is there any reason to suppose that we could ever determine if it were “true.”  Truth assumes order and stability and working minds designed to comprehend it.  While of course it is possible that those things are accurate descriptions of an atheistic universe, atheism provides no necessary reason – no clear guiding framework – no real assurances – that anything can actually be “true.” The whole concept of truth is quite out of court in the atheist world.  Since science is the search for true facts about our world through observation, atheism is not the most natural fit for science.

In contrast, most theistic worldviews presuppose that God made the universe in such a way that humans can accurately understand it at some level.  That God made things out there that are real and have real properties, and that humans can actually learn about and classify those real things.  That my mind isn’t just any other old thing like a rock; that it is especially made to understand a universe that fits with it; my mind and the universe were made by the same Maker with the goal that they complement each other.  Thus, the very power that drives science – the power of observation to understand our universe – is a far better fit with theism than with atheism.  Atheism isn’t a barrier to science; but it also doesn’t provide a clear reason for its existence.  Theism may end up being false; but it certainly provides a far more natural framework for the epistemology of science than atheism does.

Sure, some theists are opposed to science.  Who cares?  Some New York Yankees fans are opposed to Babe Ruth.  Does that mean Yankees hate Babe Ruth?  Some atheists are opposed to morality.  Does that mean that atheism produces immorality?  This argument from Grundy is like saying “The tendency for atheists to engage in fraud is a product of their inherent evil tendencies” just because one evolutionary atheist claimed to have found the “missing link” in a (now proven to be) fraudulent fossil known as Piltdown Man.

In any event, I am a theist, and the more I am convinced of theism, the more I like science.  It has never occurred to me to be opposed to scientific enquiry in any meaningful way.  So statements like this – about how theists are opposed to science because of our “dogmatism” – seem very, very far afield from anything I have ever believed or been taught…and I wonder why we are even talking about this?  [Editorial Staff comment: The discerning reader will no doubt note that the reason we are currently talking about it is because the Apologetic Professor himself is rambling on about it in his usual pompous fashion.  What can we say to this except…we are deeply sorry.  On the other hand, you, dear reader, must take some responsibility because if you are reading this, you got all the way to the end of this ridiculous post.  Don’t encourage him!] 

Personally, I would like to get on with the real question about whether God exists – and next week, we will!

This entry was posted in Christian Approach to Knowledge, Does God Exist?, Myths About Christianity, Science and Religion. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Are Theists Opposed to Science?

  1. Grundy says:

    Thanks for the kind words and the Toy Story reference, love those movies. I agree that it is easier to take down arguments than it is to build an argument, but a taking down a strong argument still ain’t easy.

    You said “Theists largely created science. Why would we deny it?” For the sake of argument, lets say that first bit it true, it doesn’t mean that theists have no motive to deny aspects of science. If Christians helped created certain fields of study, I’d say they got away from them at some point. Why would they deny it? Because it discredits parts of their holy books–which is a big problem for those who think they are the word of God, literal and infallible.

    It’s even a problem for those who don’t think their holy book is literal and infallible. Now they are outted as cherry picking verses that still make sense while passing on others.

  2. The Apologetic Professor says:

    Thanks for the comments, Grundy!

    (1) A very fair question. Certainly there is sometimes a tension between certain existing religious beliefs and certain scientific findings. I don’t deny that (and if I did, I would only show myself to be an idiot…I AM an idiot, but I prefer to hide that fact as much as possible, haha), and history is replete with that across many cultures, times, and places.

    However, that process is really not that different (as far as I can tell) than ANY process where various theories are pitted against each other. So your comment about theists being uniquely dogmatic is curious to me. It could just as easily be applied to scientists versus each other (e.g., some of Darwin’s fiercest opponents were not Christians, but rather paleontologists who were committed to a categorical view of life forms).

    Some religious people believe that the earth is 10,ooo years old. Most don’t. Most scientists are at odds with that the young-earth theory, too. So yeah, there is a “tension” between the folks who believe the 10,000 year old theory and those that don’t (both religious and atheist). But why does that mean theists are committed to a unique form of dogmatism?

    Plenty of atheists fight over scientific findings, too (e.g., one of Dawkins’ bitterest enemies was Gould – neither of them theists), because everyone everywhere has some belief system they’d like to defend and all those systems inevitably clash. So what? That’s just life. It really doesn’t say anything particularly about RELIGION, as a uniquely dogmatically-inspiring force (which was what you originally argued). As my own research suggests, atheists are just as dogmatic as religious people — they are just dogmatic about a different set of dogmas.

    It is also worth noting that (a) the historical view of the church in terms of Scripture/Science has been, at least since Aquinas, that science informs our interpretation of Scripture. Or are you saying we are not allowed to think? Really, I think you are attacking some small cult-like group of Christians living somewhere else, and not the historical church. And certainly not me! I can hardly feel threatened by the argument that “theists oppose science because of religious dogma” when I do not perceive any conflict at all between the two in my own life. (b) Often the “debates” atheists cite as about the conflict between science and religion were actually not between atheists and theists, but between theists and theists — people forget that Copernicus died a member of the church in good standing, and Galileo, while certainly not conventional, was a theist himself. So theists disagree about some aspects of science. Isn’t that healthy, as long as it is allowed? (Of course, I know that often atheists and scientists alike have been persecuted by the church — I really don’t want to minimize that. I’m only saying, let’s talk about what actually happened here, and part of what happened is that groups of theists opposed each other on scientific issues). And (c) it is often atheists who set up the false dichotomy (e.g., the first people to call Christians “heretics” for believing in evolution were not people from the church — they were atheists). Atheists sometimes try to claim science by fiat; I’m not impressed with such a claim.

    (2) You say theists cling to our anti-science dogma “because it discredits parts of their holy books–which is a big problem for those who think they are the word of God, literal and infallible.”

    OK, first of all, basically NO Christians think the Bible is entirely “literal.” I mean, some of them SAY that, but no one actually believes that, and the history of the church (read Augustine’s Confessions, if you don’t believe me) has pretty much always been defined by explicitly interpreting some things as “non-literal.” No one but a lunatic believes that when David says in the psalms “God is my rock” that he literally means God is a rock he holds in his pocket. So let’s not talk nonsense, you and I. Christians have said, pretty much from the beginning, that some of the Bible is poetry, and some is allegory, and some is context-bound, and some only applies to a small group of people and not to you and I, and some is parable — and some is history and some is universal. It’s hardly an impressive argument to throw up the old “literal” straw man, since few Christians believe anything like that. (And yeah, I am completely aware of the “Chicago Statement of Inerrancy” and all that sort of thing — I know the whole debate and so forth. Christians have long had debates about exactly where the line is, and often they use strong language. But over and against that is the long history of the church, from Augustine to Aquinas to Luther to C.S. Lewis, that treats the Bible seriously, as the various sorts of types of literature as it actually is.)

    Now, to your actual point: Since you don’t actually say what parts of what I believe are “discredited” by science (there are none that I know of), I cannot really address your argument. If you actually specify something concrete, I will try to address it. But until then, I can’t do anything but say that this is really just a declaration that science discredits what I believe, without any actual argument as to what it is and why.

    Don’t get me wrong — I do understand that there are two sides to this. My point is largely that (it seems to me) you are ignoring one side, while I am addressing both sides. And I think when one takes the wider lens, the picture that emerges does not really support your argument that theists are uniquely and dogmatically opposed to science. However, it’s possible that I’m simply mis-interpreting you; if that’s true, accept my apologies!

    (3) Yes, the “cherry-picking” argument is very fair, and I agree it is a problem for any serious religious person. In fact, I have said so myself many times on this blog. But as I have written a lot in this blog about it (see, for example, my “Leviticus problem” post on the Christian Creed), I’ll mostly take a pass here and refer the interested reader to those posts. Here I’ll limit myself to saying (a) I agree that it is a difficult issue and I don’t want to minimize it. But I don’t think it is impossible or makes Christianity intellectually non-credible IN THE MAIN, any more than difficulties in Newton or Einstein make general physics conclusions non-credible IN THE MAIN. And (b) I’m not totally sure I see the relevance in any event to the larger question of God versus no God. Let’s start with that question — does God exist? It’s a further question whether or not God has written any Holy Books and, if so, what they are. (I believe in the Bible myself — but that’s not really the exact question we are asking). About THAT question, I simply noted that theists and scientists have often been overlapping folks, and they are still largely overlapping folks, because theism is uniquely suited for scientific enquiry from an epistemological point of view. You did not rebut that argument, but instead said that some theists oppose some science because they cling to particular parts of their Holy Books. True enough — but it doesn’t really provide much in the way of an argument that I can see, aside from pointing out that some people sometimes cling to what they know over what they don’t (hardly new and applies to all cultures at all times everywhere). We are still left with the larger question; and I still see no reason why theists must necessarily oppose science because we must necessarily cling to anti-scientific dogma. Both my own experience (almost entirely) and the history of science (at least in part) say otherwise.

  3. My wife and i have been really comfortable when Peter could deal with his studies with the precious recommendations he received through the web site. It’s not at all simplistic to just find yourself offering facts that others have been trying to sell. And now we recognize we’ve got the blog owner to be grateful to for that. The specific explanations you have made, the simple website menu, the friendships you can give support to foster – it is most overwhelming, and it’s assisting our son and our family reckon that the content is excellent, and that’s truly mandatory. Many thanks for the whole thing!