|
Written by Richard Gunton
|
|
Tuesday, 20 November 2007 |
This thought-piece is based on a brief contribution to the Reformationals’ Colloquium which was convened at the West Yorkshire School of Christian Studies in October 2006. I suggested some concepts and frameworks that might help move the creationism /evolution controversy towards a debate in which Christian thinkers who hold divergent views may engage in constructive dialogue. After introducing some ideas from the Reformational Philosophy tradition, I consider both insights from and criticisms of three common positions (as I understand them) and introduce a recent suggestion from a Reformational thinker.
1. Resources from Reformational Philosophy
a. Calvin’s understanding of the reciprocal relationship between Creation and Scripture: the created world provides the setting in which we learn to think, read and understand ideas and writings of all sorts and in which the Christian perceives God’s general revelation. Meanwhile, as we study the Bible we learn to see the world more as God sees it. Our ongoing experience of the world may lead us to new interpretations of Scripture; likewise, our reading of Scripture should guide our interpretation of evidence in the created world.
b. Presuppositionalism: there is no neutral view of reality or objective starting point. Presuppositions (as in one’s “worldview”) are essential to all thought, reasoning and interpretation of evidence, and these are based on faith (Clouser 2005).
c. Acknowledging the diversity of reality. The Dutch philosopher Hermann Dooyeweerd systematised an anti-reductionist view of reality that respects the “common-sense” experience that there are diverse types of things that cannot be reduced to a single principle (e.g. “matter”, “energy” or “ideas”) and warns against a dualistic or dialectical view of reality. This leads to a concern for proper methodology within each domain of enquiry (e.g. physics for physical phenomena, psychology for mental ones) and alerts us to the dangers of misconstruing aspects of the world when we use inappropriate techniques to study them.
I believe that the traditional metaphor of a book for the natural creation is misguided when it is used to suggest that God’s “two books” (Nature and Scripture) offer two accounts of reality that may be “read” independently. This dualistic view may be expected to yield tensions and tends to elevate scientific beliefs to religiously-neutral, self-evident “facts” of nature. It thus denies both of insights (a) and (b) above.
2. Critique of three views
Scriptural Creationism contrasts the Genesis account of creation with evolutionary accounts of the origins of life, biodiversity and humans. Hermeneutical and theological arguments (e.g. concerning the origin of death) are primarily adduced, and then there is a scientific strand (Creation Science). This focuses on demonstrating the consistency of scientific evidence with a special creation model (which includes “microevolution”) and pointing out inconsistencies in naturalistic evolutionary models; it also includes a tradition of Flood geology, which is more constructive. Scriptural creationists may argue that past events are not the proper domain of scientific investigation, and their acknowledgment of a religious starting-point is commendable.
However, Creation Science is often promoted without reference to its religious basis and by people without scientific training. Valid reasoning and proper consideration of evidence are often short-circuited, so that the movement attracts a reputation for being naïve. Roy Clouser’s (2005) critique of the “fundamentalist” assumption that Scripture has something to say about every conceivable matter of interest may be pertinent.
Theistic Evolution is a general term for Christian views that largely accept conventional scientific accounts of origins (the term is mostly used by opponents of these views). Some of the strongest Christian proponents of contemporary scientific orthodoxy are professional biologists, and their common point of engagement with the issue of origins is to refute the hermeneutics, theology and science of creationist positions. The rejection of scientific orthodoxy may be a denial of God’s common grace by which all people may understand some of the truth about reality, without special revelation, and the creationist claim that God created through “supernatural” acts has been branded a case of (spirit–nature) dualism.
However, the a priori partitioning of scientific and theological interests so as to avoid conflict (e.g. trying to distinguish “how” and “why” questions) also seems dualistic; Theistic Evolution is dubbed an oxymoron, “theistic naturalism”, by Philip Johnson (1995). Furthermore, the apparent similarity of an account of “theistic evolution” to one of atheistic evolution (the sort of model which many popular science writers promote) needs explanation.
Reformational philosophers might respond here by claiming that the “laws of nature” that scientific accounts invoke are in fact meaningful only insofar as there should be a “law-maker” behind them – and thus all science is implicitly theistic, evolutionary biology included.
The Intelligent Design (ID) movement, like Creationism, has two strands. Philosophically, it recognises the role of presuppositions in scientific interpretation of evidence, accusing evolutionary scientists of religious bias when they disallow hypotheses that are not naturalistic. Scientifically, it posits a non-naturalistic “intelligent design” hypothesis and explores evidence in its support. Its leading lights are qualified academics. They have argued that accounts of origins are among the fundamental presuppositions that constitute a worldview, and that naturalistic accounts constitute a “creation myth” on a par with any other.
However, the main thrust of ID is a “design inference”. This is presented as the only logical option following theoretical demonstrations that are given to show that naturalistic processes are inadequate to explain observed aspects of biological structures. ID proponents thus claim that a particular model is logically prompted by empirical data. Yet presuppositionalism tells us that no form of scientific work is religiously neutral; conclusions are reached by applying presumed criteria to hypotheses which are themselves theory-driven. This seems to legitimate the design hypothesis rather than the design inference. Moreover, the design inference is implicitly theistic to most scientists’ ears, which suggests a methodological transgression from science to religion.
A recent proposal comes from the Reformational Philosophy tradition itself. Biotic laws are posited by scholars of Dooyeweerd, distinguishing them from mathematical, physical, kinetic and all other types of laws that are ordained by God. Uko Zylstra (2004) suggests that the biotic laws may include laws of developmental evolution. These laws are as “natural” as any laws, but apply specifically to the biotic domain and are not reducible to physics or chemistry. Thus neither they, nor indeed laws of physics or chemistry, would explain the origin of living from non-living things. This idea awaits deeper analysis and development and, not least, consideration by open-minded scientists. Questions may already be raised about what level of explanation such biotic laws might provide and, indeed, whether our culture of accepting reductionist explanations will enable us to recognise accounts of the origins of biological complexity on a level above maths, physics and chemistry.
3. Outlook
I believe that each of the above approaches has something valuable to contribute to a constructive debate about origins. My hope is that the insights of Reformational philosophy may provide an acceptable framework within which Christians who hold each of these views, and others, may engage constructively in discussing the interpretation of scripture and the study of biological diversity. My experience is that a lack of shared values among Christians in the arena of academic discourse commonly precludes any genuine engagement, so that there is no debate but merely controversy. Stories of origins are bound to emotive, but if Christians lack any framework within which to compare them constructively, we reveal to the world that our unity does not extend to the life of the mind.
Richard Gunton October 2007
References
Clouser R (2005) The Myth of Religious Neutrality, 2nd edn
Johnson PE (1995) Reason in the Balance. InterVarsity, Downers Grove IL
Zylstra U (2004) Intelligent-design theory: An argument for biotic laws. Zygon 39:175-191
MosCom Component not yet installed. |
|
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 20 November 2007 )
|
|
|
Written by Andrew Basden
|
|
Thursday, 02 August 2007 |
|
(Editors note. This introduction to his forthcoming book was submitted by Andrew at the Reformational Colloquium (Oct 06) at WYSOCS. To read more of Andrew's work on Dooyeweerd go to his website here .)
BOOK 'PHILOSOPHICAL FRAMEWORKS FOR
UNDERSTANDING INFORMATION SYSTEMS'
Early 1990s, I found Dooyeweerd's aspects useful in helping me think about 'benefits' and 'detriment' of using computers, including diverse, indirect, unexpected repercussions. Likewise I found them useful in understanding environmental sustainability. Then I found his aspects aligned nicely with a levelled notion of what a computer is. Then I found that the normativity of aspects helped guide the design and development of information systems. As a bonus Dooyeweerd shared my Christian faith, and affirmed my 'lifeworld' approach that brings theory and practice together.
So I began to publish papers recommending Dooyeweerd as a way of understanding or guiding various areas in I.S. Then I realised that they all form a coherence 'whole story'. I came to believe that Dooyeweerd provides a more useful underpinning to at least five areas of research and practice in I.S., than do other philosophies. I was given study leave to help sort out my thoughts, and wrote a book 'Philosophical Frameworks for Understanding Information Systems', and now am preparing it for a publisher, Idea Group Inc, for publication in 2007. The areas are:
a) Usage of computers in human living
b) "What is a computer?" (Can it truly think, understand, etc.?)
c) Design and development of information systems for human living
d) The shaping of types of information technology
e) Societal issues: the impact IT has on the way we live and do business, and how the shape IT has is affected by our world views.
I find different portions of Dooyeweerd's philosophy useful in each:
a) Human activity as multi-aspectual functioning that has diverse
repercussions
b) Dooyeweerd's theory of entities as multi-layered, and Being arising
from Meaning so it is correct to say both "The computer discovered
a molybdenum deposit" and "John used the computer to discover a
molybdenum deposit" - but in different ways.
c) The normativity of the aspects can guide development.
d) That each aspect is a way of being, functioning, law, relating, etc.
provides guidance for the shape of information technology.
e) Dooyeweerd's notion of correlative enkapsis helps us understand the
circular relationship; and his belief that all has a religious root explains the 'idolatry of computers'.
I have tried in my book to link Dooyeweerd's ideas with those of extant thinkers in each area, not as antithetical to them so much as affirming and enriching them. I explained this approach at PR 2005 and in a paper to be published in Philosophia Reformata in 2007.
Andrew Basden
26 October 2006.
MosCom Component not yet installed. |
|
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 28 August 2007 )
|
|
|
Written by Rudi Hayward
|
|
Friday, 29 June 2007 |
|
Over the last decade or so there have been a number of well written, and often quite scholarly, books written on the lack of a distinctively “Christian mind”. It has been the great strength of reformational Christianity to see scholarship in its broadest sense to be an important Christian calling. In particular those who have recognised the reformational implications of Christianity have seen it as important to engage in the full range of academic disciplines on their own terms, and not merely through a theological lens. Foundational to any field of scholarship are philosophical questions about the nature of its field of investigation and how it relates to that of other disciples. So as well as making some of the fruits of reformational scholarship available to a wider audience, we also hope to introduce the basic contours of a reformational philosophy.
It might reasonably be asked though what has serving God got to do with thinking about philosophy. In this first piece I want to try and answer that question as briefly and simply as I can. Our starting point should be that of every Christian: the fundamental confession that “Jesus is Lord”. The Bible gives us no reason to restrict this confession, leaving certain areas of our life outside Christ’s lordship, instead again and again we are called to submit our whole life to he who saved us. As we well know our lives are far from perfectly submitted to Christ, and so we must continually seek the renewing of our minds so that we will know, also in the area of philosophy, what is God’s good, pleasing and perfect will (Romans 12:2).
One of the fullest expressions of Christ’s lordship is found in Colossians 1:15-20. Here Paul states that “all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (vv.16-17). This is important for philosophy, as since its inception it has sought to explain the origin of things and how things hold together. So, first off, a christian approach to thinking philosophically will reject all and any attempt to find the origin and coherence of our world within itself. Such attempts are forms of idolatry (see Romans 1:21-25). Perhaps the various forms of materialism, often touted as the results of scientific thinking, are amongst the most conspicuous attempts to do this today.
On the more positive side philosophical thinking along christian lines will emphasise the richness of God’s world, beyond any human attempt to comprehend it (see Job 38-41, Psalms 19 & 104).
To put things in more technical, though hopefully still understandable, language, philosophy involves and reflects on theoretical thinking. Now the development of theories often, if not always, depends on analysis, or in other words taking things apart in thought. We separate out an aspect of reality and focus on it, ignoring other realities with which it is connected; in a word we employ abstraction. Through an act of thought we leave the fullness of reality and investigate an isolated piece of data. If there is a faith in theoretical thought that leads one to believe it gives us the true picture of reality, against the ambiguities (and richness) of everyday experience, then the result of theoretical thinking will be equated with true reality. Given the nature of abstraction to isolate and focus on an aspect of the world, the equation of theoretical data with true reality tempts one to posit that aspect of reality as the independent and fundamental basis of all reality. All isms that one encounters in the different fields of scholarship, rationalism, behaviourism, psychologism, organicism, historicism, physicalism etc., give evidence of the seductiveness of this temptation.
One of the tasks of philosophy, conceived christianly, is to combat the tendency to reduce reality to one or two basic realities on which all else depends or through which all else can be explained. It also has the task of exploring the richness of God’s world as uncovered by the many fields of scholarship by giving a theoretical overview that remains open to further surprises. As with all cultural tasks this should be done in obedience to the two great commandments to love God and serve ones neighbour.
For more information on this approach to philosophy watch this space. Also explore the Dooyeweerd Pages and All of Life Redeemed
MosCom Component not yet installed. |
|
Last Updated ( Friday, 29 June 2007 )
|
|
|
Ideas and theories in the news, in the cultural 'air' or just general zeitgeist critique
Philosophy & Science 
