Apologetics: Not Just For Theists
June 15, 2006 Posted by Amy Hall
Ought we to dismiss the work of apologists simply because they’re defending their particular worldviews? In an interesting discussion that ensued in the comments for my recent post on apologists, a reader made this charge:
Whereas the rationally-minded individual arrives at a tentative conclusion through argument and logic, the apologist already knows the conclusion, and his task is to fashion argument in support of it. As you can probably discern, the apologist is not held in very high regard outside the theology or belief he defends, and his work is regarded warily.
The problem with this statement about apologists is that it applies to everybody–especially scientists. How does any scientist–naturalist or theist–decide how to direct his research? He looks where he thinks discoveries are most likely to be found based on his view of the nature of the universe. He knows the ultimate conclusion (naturalism or theism), and in his effort to reveal truth, he looks for facts that fit in with the overall truth he believes actually exists. Does this automatically invalidate his findings? What if his findings are true? Shouldn’t the results be judged on their own merit rather than on the philosophical motivations of their finder?
I’m currently reading Nancy Pearcey’s book, Total Truth, and tonight I came across a passage that perfectly illustrates the idea that scientist apologists for naturalism work in the same way as any apologist:
The famous duo who discovered the double-helix structure of DNA, Francis Crick and James Watson, freely admit that anti-religious motivations drove their scientific work. “I went into science because of these religious reasons, there’s no doubt about that,” Crick said in a recent interview. “I asked myself what were the two things that appear inexplicable and are used to support religious beliefs.” He decided the two things that support religion were “the difference between living and nonliving things, and the phenomenon of consciousness.” He then aimed his own research specifically at demonstrating a naturalistic view of both. [The original quote by Crick can be found here.]
But isn’t an adherence to naturalistic evolution different from an adherence to a religion? Not according to philosopher of science (and evolutionist) Michael Ruse who, when confronted with the charge that evolution functions as a religion, finally admitted [from Total Truth] “that evolution really is ‘more than mere science….Evolution came into being as a kind of secular ideology, a secular religion–a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality.’” [See more on this here.] As such, its followers seek to support it through their work.
So if it’s the case that naturalistic scientists are defending their view and theistic scientists are defending their view, what good would it do us to dismiss all of their work? Instead, we ought to recognize that no human being is neutral–we are all driven by philosophical presuppositions, and it’s likely that claims on all sides will be exaggerated at times. Our job is to examine and evaluate the evidence itself, following where it leads (even if away from our current worldview) regardless of who brought it to light.
This approach, rather than the other, will keep us on the path of truth.
Related posts:
- Design and Knowledge
- Vonnegut on the Tribal Thinking of Scientists
- The Heart of Intelligent Design Theory
- Are You Wary of Apologetics?
- Confusion About Science and Religion - Part One
- Valuing Apologetics in a Postmodern World
Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Main Page, Philosophy, Religion (General), Science
content rss
June 15th, 2006 at 7:48 pm
Interestingly enough, the science news of the day is that a missing link in bird evolution has been found. Doesn't this count as evidence for a conclusion that was already “known” by scientists?
June 19th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
Just had a discussion about the fact/value split with a colleague the other day, talking about “religion” in public schools.
Interestingly, I'm pretty sure I heard on a recent ACLJ radio show that the Supreme Court has (in the past) ruled that secular humanism is a religion.
June 20th, 2006 at 10:57 am
Hello again. Sorry for not getting back to you earlier; I’ve been corresponding at length with some Christian college students. I’m flattered that you’d take more time to discuss this issue based on a few of my comments.
There are several tangles in your post that I think need to be sorted out if a discussion is to proceed.
First of all, naturalism and theism are philosophies, and while both have their defenders and proponents, I think it stretches the common understanding of apologetics too much to include them under its umbrella—or any philosophy for that matter. Primarily, apologetics is understood as a defense of belief, specifically Christian belief, from which the term originated. As Christian philosopher Dick Sztanyo put it, “Apologetics is the proclamation and defense of the gospel of Christ regardless of whenever, wherever, and by whomever it is challenged.”
Second, no philosophy I’m aware sees itself as possessing “the ultimate conclusion.” This seems rather non-sensical. Philosophy is about the search for wisdom. I think you’re seeing in philosophy something only religions claim to have.
Finally, I think it’s a mistake to view philosophical views as determining scientific inquiry; naturalism, theism, whatever-ism…they’re all largely irrelevant to the scientist, who may adhere to any one of them. If philosophy governed a scientist’s thinking, theistic scientists would investigate and support intelligent design, but not a whole lot of them do. What binds scientists together is the belief that for something to qualify as science, the scientist’s observations must be independently verifiable by others.
I think your discussion on how a scientist “reveals truth” has it backward. You appear to be conflating philosophy with scientific theory, and then assuming that theory precedes the advancement of science. But this begs the question, how’d the theory arise in the first place? Science does not proceed from any particular theory as a starting point and then work backwards, but from observation, to hypothesis, then to theory. Scientists do work within established theories to further them or debunk them, or to branch out in new fields. Why reinvent the wheel?
But isn’t an adherence to naturalistic evolution different from an adherence to a religion? Not according to philosopher of science (and evolutionist) Michael Ruse…
Ruse obviously does not speak for all scientists. In the telegraph.co.uk article you referred to previously, one of the theistic scientists stated his unequivocal support for both evolution and God:
(I also note that the telegraph.co.uk article does not include support for Pearcy’s contention that double-helix structure co-discoverer Francis Click “aimed his own research specifically at demonstrating a naturalistic view”. No where is naturalism mentioned in the article.)
It’s clear that one can support both theism and evolution. You claim “…naturalistic scientists are defending their view and theistic scientists are defending their view” without ever delineating which view theistic scientists are defending. The fact that many theistic scientists support evolution over intelligent design, probably by a large majority, shows 1) that philosophy does not govern science or scientific inquiry; and 2) naturalistic and theistic scientists agree more than they disagree.
I’ll make comments on your ID post next.
June 20th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
First of all, naturalism and theism are philosophies, and while both have their defenders and proponents, I think it stretches the common understanding of apologetics too much to include them under its umbrella—or any philosophy for that matter.
Robert, the term “apologist” is not only used for Christians. The fact is that people defend their views about a lot of things.
Second, no philosophy I’m aware sees itself as possessing “the ultimate conclusion.” This seems rather non-sensical. Philosophy is about the search for wisdom. I think you’re seeing in philosophy something only religions claim to have.
Everyone alive is making decisions based on their ultimate understanding of the world. They search for wisdom within the framework they believe is true, and sometimes–if they’re open–they find in their search that the evidence is pointing away from their previous ultimate conclusion. But every philosophy claims to have the answers to the ultimate questions. That’s what makes it a particular philosophy–a particular view of the way the world actually is.
People who believe in naturalism believe they possess the ultimate conclusion: “Nature is all there is, all there ever was, and all there ever will be,” as Sagan put it. I’m sure this is completely foreign idea to you, but the fact is that Christianity and naturalism are competing worldviews that answer the same types of questions about who we are and why we’re here and are both defended by their supporters.
Finally, I think it’s a mistake to view philosophical views as determining scientific inquiry; naturalism, theism, whatever-ism…they’re all largely irrelevant to the scientist, who may adhere to any one of them.
I’m curious, then, how do you explain the quote I gave by Crick?
If philosophy governed a scientist’s thinking, theistic scientists would investigate and support intelligent design.
Not if they want to keep their jobs. The scientific establishment is pretty dogmatic about its beliefs in naturalism. Those who don’t fall in line get hammered pretty hard. Also, a lot of scientists who would claim to be theists have bought into the naturalistic view of the world (i.e., religion is about feelings that don’t have anything to do with reality) because it’s been deeply ingrained. The problem is that, being scientists instead of philosophers, they didn’t think through what they were accepting because they weren’t trained to do so.
What binds scientists together is the belief that for something to qualify as science, the scientist’s observations must be independently verifiable by others.
Absolutely. And what ID scientists are offering is observable evidence which is being rejected a priori because it doesn’t match their philosophy and therefore is considered wrong by definition.
I think your discussion on how a scientist “reveals truth” has it backward. You appear to be conflating philosophy with scientific theory, and then assuming that theory precedes the advancement of science.
A person’s philosophy absolutely preceeds the advancement of science by directing the theories that are developed. We think within a worldview, so our theories will obviously fall within that worldview. Scientists admit (like Crick) that there are problems with Darwinism, but they believe naturalism to be true, so they accept it by default and then search for support like evidence that life can come from non-life, they look for fossils of transitional forms, etc.
But this begs the question, how’d the theory arise in the first place? Science does not proceed from any particular theory as a starting point and then work backwards, but from observation, to hypothesis, then to theory.
As I mentioned before, so do many of the ID people. For example, the author of Biochemical Predestination, a book which tried to prove naturalism and Darwinism were true (life came from non-life naturally), a book which has been a standard textbook, eventually was convinced by the evidence that he was in the wrong camp, and the evidence points to design. Not only that it points to design, but that design is the best explanation for the facts. I don’t know if this guy is a Christian now, but he is on the side of ID.
However, in the case of most naturalists, the answers they will consider are constrained by their philosophy, so they’re not considering the most likely answer to explain the evidence.
Ruse obviously does not speak for all scientists.
Ruse is a philosopher of science. That means he’s trained to think not only scientifically, but also about what science itself is and what it means. Most scientists aren’t trained in philosophy, so they don’t see the big picture. Ruse, who is, sees what’s going on because he’s trained as a philosopher to recognize these things.
In the telegraph.co.uk article you referred to previously, one of the theistic scientists stated his unequivocal support for both evolution and God.
The naturalistic idea that “nature is all there is, all there ever was, and all there ever will be” (this is evolution–an explaining of how life came from non-life, etc., through natural accidents) is fundamentally at odds with the idea that a creator brought everything into being out of nothing.
(I also note that the telegraph.co.uk article does not include support for Pearcy’s contention that double-helix structure co-discoverer Francis Click “aimed his own research specifically at demonstrating a naturalistic view”. No where is naturalism mentioned in the article.)
Click said, “I asked myself what were the two things that appear inexplicable [by naturalistic causes] and are used to support religious beliefs.” Then his work focused on finding naturalistic explanations. That seems pretty clear. The article doesn’t mention the word “naturalism” because it assumes that “explanations” means “naturalistic explanations.” This is a perfect example of a worldview being assumed such that other explanations are ruled out a priori.
You seem like a thoughtful guy, Robert! It’s obvious you care about these things and you want to be able to make your case (an apologist for evolution!). I think if you can get a grasp of the philosophy involved here, it will help you think more clearly about the issues and give you the edge on others who are arguing evolution while pretending the philosophy behind it has nothing to do with it. Also, it really helps to read the best arguments of the opposing side. Invest some time in reading Total Truth by Pearcey, and you’ll understand much better where the other side is coming from.
The fact that many theistic scientists support evolution over intelligent design, probably by a large majority, shows 1) that philosophy does not govern science or scientific inquiry; and 2) naturalistic and theistic scientists agree more than they disagree.
They certainly agree on many things! But they disagree on what explanations can be ruled out [i.e., an intelligent designer] for the way life appeared on this earth. As I said, most scientists haven’t been trained in philosophy so they don’t recognize that they’re being constrained by a particular philosophy. All ID people are asking is for scientists to follow the evidence where it leads–even if that means away from their philosophy.
June 20th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Also, I don't know if you saw the response to you I posted with the links here, so there it is again.
June 21st, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Robert, the term “apologist” is not only used for Christians. The fact is that people defend their views about a lot of things.
I understand you’re arguing for a broad definition of apologist, since it will place everyone on the same field of defending a set of presumed beliefs, but I will stick to my guns in saying the term applies primarily to Christians and to adherents of other religions. Google the word “apologetics” and the results will illustrate my point. I’ve yet to come across the term “evolution apologist”. Also, Christian apologists rarely make an adjectival distinction; they simply call themselves “apologists.”
Everyone alive is making decisions based on their ultimate understanding of the world.
This is a fairly broad generalization that appears to me unsupported by reality. In my understanding of how people act, they don’t make decisions in a manner consistent with some “ultimate understanding of the world”; rather, their decisions are based on a variety of factors, from the mundane to the complex. See, for example, Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions for a fuller treatment.
I’m sure this is completely foreign idea to you, but the fact is that Christianity and naturalism are competing worldviews that answer the same types of questions about who we are and why we’re here and are both defended by their supporters.
I must admit to being a novice with regards to the philosophy of naturalism, but all that I’ve read suggests that it does not attempt to answer “why we’re here”. I’d very much appreciate any reference to clarifications on this matter.
I’m curious, then, how do you explain the quote I gave by Crick?
The fact that both theistic and atheistic scientists believe in evolution and work within the framework of the theory is sufficient proof that a philosophy does not necessarily guide their work. How do you explain the quote I gave by Collins? (You offered no direct response to it.)
A person’s philosophy absolutely preceeds the advancement of science by directing the theories that are developed.
This is the key assertion, which I’ve attempted to show is false by pointing out that both theistic and naturalist scientists support evolution. In answer, you contend:
1) Non-naturalist scientists fear for their jobs by not supporting naturalism; and
2) Non-naturalist scientists are essentially naturalists, though they don’t recognize it.
The first explanation essentially posits a conspiracy of such breathtaking proportions, it seems way too improbable to believe. You will need to provide some sort of evidence for such a position to be taken seriously.
The second explanation is perplexing on at least two grounds. First of all, it denies the long-held view among theistic scientists, such as Collins and Miller whom I cite, that evolution is compatible with a belief in God. Secondly, if you allow that non-naturalists can be mistaken about their true philosophy, why do you remain so convinced of naturalist scientists’ conviction about theirs? In other words, you appear to only allow that theistic scientists could be mistaken about their philosophy. But if naturalist scientists could also be mistaken, then it further undermines your assertion that philosophy guides their work.
Though you don’t explicitly say so, it would seem you just cannot concede that a theistic scientist would willingly or consciously support evolution. Though I think the evidence strongly disagrees with you, the only thing I can do is respect your opinion. One wonders what you think of theistic scientists who reject both ID and evolution in favor of young-earth creationism.
Ruse is a philosopher of science. That means he’s trained to think not only scientifically, but also about what science itself is and what it means. Most scientists aren’t trained in philosophy, so they don’t see the big picture. Ruse, who is, sees what’s going on because he’s trained as a philosopher to recognize these things.
Perhaps. One is curious, then, what you make of Ruse’s recent comment that “ID is not only bad science, it’s bad religion”?
this is evolution–an explaining of how life came from non-life, etc., through natural accidents
It would appear you have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution does not deal with the naturalistic origin of life from non-life (abiogenesis); this is a mischaracterization by certain religionists (usually creationists) who seek to discredit evolution by tying it to that much less broadly understood process. Evolution picks up after the appearance of the life, not with it. The distinction allows a diverse set of belief, from scientists to major Christian denominations, to support both a theistic origin of life AND evolution.
Your error is akin to someone claiming that ID theory identifies the designer as God (even if several of its proponents do just that.)
You seem like a thoughtful guy, Robert! It’s obvious you care about these things and you want to be able to make your case (an apologist for evolution!). I think if you can get a grasp of the philosophy involved here, it will help you think more clearly about the issues and give you the edge on others who are arguing evolution while pretending the philosophy behind it has nothing to do with it. Also, it really helps to read the best arguments of the opposing side. Invest some time in reading Total Truth by Pearcey, and you’ll understand much better where the other side is coming from.
Amy, I’m sure you didn’t mean it in this way, but your statements here come across as patronizing. You infer that:
1) I do not have an adequate grasp of philosophy as it pertains to our discussion;
2) I need help thinking more clearly about the issues;
3) I adhere to the mistaken notion that philosophy has little to with evolution;
4) I am not cognizant of the “best arguments” of the “opposing side” (presumably the ID side).
Is this truly your stance?
All ID people are asking is for scientists to follow the evidence where it leads–even if that means away from their philosophy.
How can you be sure that scientists haven’t looked at the evidence as ID presents it, and yet still reject the theory? It would appear a lot of them have done just that.
June 21st, 2006 at 6:57 pm
I will stick to my guns in saying the term applies primarily to Christians and to adherents of other religions.
That may be your view, but it's just not the case. I heard it just last night on the news, and they weren't talking about religion. Put the word “apologist” into a search engine. Just on the first page I found several non-religious examples. Here are just a couple:
Definition: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/apologist
This guy is a political apologist: http://forwardthehegemony.blogspot.com/
It's used more broadly than you think, so I don't think I'm wrong in applying it to someone who's out to defend naturalism.
(And I've never known a Christian apologist not to specify “Christian” when speaking to a non-Christian audience.)
I must admit to being a novice with regards to the philosophy of naturalism, but all that I’ve read suggests that it does not attempt to answer “why we’re here”.
The answer it gives to why we’re here is “no reason.” We’re here by chance and we have no purpose. This has huge implications for every area of life. There’s no ultimate meaning, there’s no inherent value in human beings, etc.
The first explanation essentially posits a conspiracy of such breathtaking proportions, it seems way too improbable to believe.
I wouldn’t call it a conspiracy. I would call it pressure to conform. Promoting intelligent design isn’t exactly a way to get ahead when the accepted orthodoxy is something else. It’s the same with any subject.
In other words, you appear to only allow that theistic scientists could be mistaken about their philosophy. But if naturalist scientists could also be mistaken, then it further undermines your assertion that philosophy guides their work.
I’m not really sure what you’re saying here. People believe the framework they believe in–whether or not they think it through or even think about the fact that they have a framework. Just because they could be mistaken doesn’t mean they think they are.
Perhaps. One is curious, then, what you make of Ruse’s recent comment that “ID is not only bad science, it’s bad religion”?
I would think that he disagrees with ID and thinks it’s bad science. Nobody on the ID side claims it’s religion, so I don’t think they’d argue with the idea that it was a bad one.
Evolution does not deal with the naturalistic origin of life from non-life.
The idea of evolution is that everything evolved from inanimate matter by chance. That’s life from non-life. If what you’re saying is the case, then why are people spending time trying to create enzymes from chemicals they believe were present in the “primordial soup?”
I didn’t mean to patronize you, and I’m truly sorry if it came off that way. I meant those things honestly. Have you read ID books? Have you read books explaining the different worldviews and how the ideas connect? I’m not trying to insult you at all, I’m trying to encourage you. Most people haven’t looked into these things. You said yourself you don’t have a lot of training in naturalism. All I’m saying is that this would give you a deeper understanding of the issues and that can only help your debate.
It could absolutely be that scientists look at the evidence and reject the theory. I have no problem with saying that. But I hear many outright dismissals of the evidence before it’s even looked at merely because it doesn’t reflect a naturalistic worldview.