Why Doubts? What to Do? (RJS)

Last updated on: February 12, 2019 at 4:55 am by RJS

Why Doubts? What to Do? (RJS) 2019-02-11T21:31:11-06:00 RJS

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Why do people doubt science? (Above is the view I am enjoying this week – hard at work at a conference.)

People find many reasons to question authorities – scientists, pastors, priests, presidents. The issues are often similar, but not identical. In particular I have long been interested in the reasons religious people (especially evangelical Christians) question scientific consensus. As a group, we are not “science deniers” or at least most of us are not. Yet even David Fitch recently posted on Facebook:

There was a time when evangelical fundamentalism dismissed and defended against modern science. This led, in my opinion, to a opposite reaction within evangelicalism to embrace modern science, evolution, modern psychology, medical advances, etc. We see it in movements as diverse as creationist science and BioLogos. IMO this reaction led often to a naive acceptance of science as too readily objective and determinative in moral and social issues. Science often (subtly) becomes an equal with the Bible. And yet it has been proven over and over (since Foucault at least) to be the captive of ideology. This is why I teach, not to dismiss modern science, but discern discern discern modern science, where its conclusions are coming from, where it illumines, where it merely plays to a political agenda. 🙂

I agree with much of what David says – although I bristle at his characterization of BioLogos. His implication seems to be that it arose as an “opposite reaction,” i.e. a reactionary embracing of evolution. As an expert, this isn’t my impression of BioLogos. Rather, it arose out of expertise. A core of scientists who are also Christians have found this an important topic to pursue. Others with expertise in theology, biblical studies, and philosophy have joined the effort. We agree that discern, discern, discern is very good advice. This is why we have come together to address the issue of evolution; its implications and its compatibility with Christian faith. We endeavor to build trust and make the case. The fundamental idea of the gradual development of the diversity of life over hundreds of millions of years is incredibly well supported by the data. Aspects of the mechanisms and pathways are still being discovered, debated, and revised, but these details are insignificant when it comes to the interface with Christian faith.

But, David might be surprised to know that the issues he brings up are also of concern within the scientific community. An opinion piece in an on-line magazine The Scientist came across my inbox Monday: Opinion: What You Believe about “Science Denial” May Be All Wrong. The author, Kari Fischer, was one of the organizers of a conference dealing with so-called science denial. In this opinion piece she summarizes 6 take-away messages. The following is a quote – although I’ve shortened as indicated by the ellipses.

It’s not “science denial.” … [F]ew people reject science in its entirety. … [W]e ALL have a tendency to cherry-pick facts that support our beliefs, and eschew those that fail to comport with our motivations, ideologies, or fears. This is not unique to science.

Check yourself. … As it should, scientific consensus evolves over time as new knowledge is uncovered, so what we perceive as “truth” today may change. On top of that, science is a power structure with its own flaws. … Before we engage with those who challenge scientific thinking, we should first answer the following questions for ourselves: What were the motivations behind the research? How well corroborated is the data? What oversight and criticism has it received? And-this may the most important of all-why do we believe it?

Listen first. To better understand those we seek to convince, we must start by asking the right questions: Where did they get their information? What personal stories shaped their underlying fears or concerns? Storytelling is empirically proven to be more potent than stand-alone data, so we must always remember that their anecdotes may ultimately be far more compelling to them than a simple recitation of scientific facts.

Keep it relevant. When we transition to sharing information, we should present it in a way that is relatable to our target audience and their community. …

Engender trust. It is impossible for anyone to sift through all the data in the world ourselves, so people look to reliable messengers, leaders, and peers to filter and interpret relevant knowledge. … But trust cannot be forced. …

Remember what you represent. … [W]hen we do speak out, we must remember that we represent not only ourselves, but our institutions, and science as a whole. We should resist the temptation to engage with trolls, or become them ourselves by berating “non-believers.” Ridicule will not foster trust.

Engender trust and ridicule will not foster trust … a message we would all do well to remember; especially as Christians aiming to spread a message within our communities and the world. We have lost the trust of much of surrounding society for unfortunate reasons. This is too big to dig into here and is largely independent of science and its relationship with Christian faith.

Back to David Fitch’s comments. Science – an ambiguous and broad designation – is not equal with the Bible. Scientists, when acting as scientists using the tools of science, address questions that are quite different from the central questions addressed by the Bible. We would all do well to also remember this.

Science is far too often viewed as “readily objective and determinative in moral and social issues.” The history, and even some current examples, can be cited as clear repudiation of objectivity in moral and social issues. “Science” has been co-opted to support among other things, racism, eugenics, and the selective abortion of “defective” infants. Richard Dawkins was never a trusted authority in my book – but when he argued a moral imperative for the abortion following an in utero diagnosis of Down’s syndrome (see one story in The Guardian) he epitomized the problem. His opinion was moral, was his own, and was not science. The possibilities introduced by new capabilities in gene editing raise concern – as does the willingness to discard members of society for reasons of health, age, and national origin. As Christians, our society encompasses the entire world – all are neighbors. There are many important questions where our input is essential.

David Fitch recommended that we “discern modern science, where its conclusions are coming from, where it illumines, where it merely plays to a political agenda.” The down side to this excellent advice is that it can be used as an excuse to dismiss the conclusions we don’t like. Discernment is hard work and requires an openness to challenging conclusions. I am open to genuine evidence that undermines the basic evolutionary model of development over deep time. So far I haven’t seen any.

Perhaps it is time we move on to more important issues.

What do you think?

How can we engender trust?

If you wish to contact me directly, you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

February 12, 2019

Whiteness, Race, and Slavery in the USA

Next Post

February 12, 2019 Love and Lent

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Acts of the Apostles Adam Advent Anabaptism Angels Anglican Apologetics Atonement Baptism BCP Prayers Bible Biblical Studies Birds Blogging Bloglossary Bonhoeffer Books Calvinism Christianity Church Church History Coffee Colossians Commentary Recs Conversion Creation Creeds Culture Death Ecclesiastes Economics Education Embracing Grace Emergent Emerging Movement Eschatology Essays Ethics Eucharist Evangelicalism Family Fasting Fathers Fellowship of Differents Footsteps Tour Fun and Whimsical Gospel Grace Happiness Heaven Hell Holy Spirit Irenaeus James Jesus Jesus Creed Job Justification Kingdom of God Law Lectures Lent Liberalism Love and Marriage Mabanteneni Manhood Mary Miracles Missio Alliance MissioLife Missional Missional Jesus Movies and Film New Perspective Northern Seminary OneLife Origins Project Orthodox Parables Pastor's Spouse Pastoring and Leading Pastoring and Preaching Patristics Paul Paul-John Tour Pharisees Pietism Political Theology Prayer and Formation Preaching Problems for Faith Psalm 119 Psalms Public Issues Purgatory Religions Resurrection Revelation Romans Rule of JCreed Science and Faith Sermon on the Mount Sports Ten Commandments Theology Third Way Top Ten Lists Translations Uncategorized Universalism University Ministry Way Out Weekly Meanderings Wisdom Women and Ministry Work Worship Writing & Blogging Youth Ministry

Select a Month July 2021 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 0000

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What is the correct order of 'these three' that remain, as mentioned in 1 Corinthians 13?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Faith, hope, love Love, faith, hope Hope, faith, love Faith, love, hope