8 replies on “Kallistos Ware on Faith and Science”
I have a lot of trouble with much of what he’s saying. If G_d decided to put into writing any facet of how the world was created, it shouldn’t be in contradiction to what the reality is (one could say our scientific method is wrong, but he’s not making that claim). His answer is basically, let’s just compartmentalize science and faith into different boxes and not think about one in the context of the other. That’s not a very satisfying answer.
Meh. I have no doubt that the good bishop is a wiser and more learned man than I am [I’m sure he’s flattered]. Yet, at the risk of overstatement, this strikes me as too simplistic, easy, naive and dualistic.
If God is the creator, sustainer and redeemer of all things, then surely there is at least a dynamic and tension here, which Bishop Ware, for understandable reasons, wishes to eliminate. Science of course relies on reason. Yet, the denial of God is a denial of that same reason. This does not mean of course that a scientist who denies God can’t draw valid conclusions from his investigations, which we can acknowledge and even admire. But it does mean that his doing so is in reliance on a truth he denies. Furthermore, philosophy, theology and ethics all precede and inform science. Thomas Kuhn was and is right.
This quote from Vern Poythress is insightful:
“Scientific law displays the attributes of God himself, such as omnipresence (the same in all places), immutability, immateriality, invisibility, transcendence (above the particular phenomena), immanence (touching on the particulars)…(some)scientists sometimes evade this testimony to God by trying to think that the laws that they investigate are impersonal, a kind of mindless mechanism… But (these) scientists still believe that the laws are fundamentally rational, and fundamentally language-like, so that they can be described in human language and thought through with human discourse. Rationality and complex language ability belong to persons, not to rocks and plants and worms. Scien(ce)clearly rel(ies) on the personal character of law.”
John — I’m not sure what that quote from Poythress buys you. Science and Christian faith are not in tension if “science” doesn’t wander into metaphysics — true. But if you want to go further and suggest that there is “empirical” evidence for “design” — meh right back. It’s just mixing methodologies the other way round.
Be careful with Kuhn, BTW — he is a metaphysical anti-realist, therefore a social constructivist all the way down, and therefore no friend to Christian faith.
I hear you about Kuhn. But just as we can receive insights from the non-Christian scientist, we can likewise do so from the philosopher, even if he too denies truths on which his “findings” depend.
What you and Ware seem to want to say is that things like beauty, wonder, goodness and love cannot be addressed by science. With this I agree. When we get into issues of language, mathematics and life, for example, the lines I think are not so strictly defined, though I think of course that science is inadequate to fully explain them. When it comes to naturalistic processes however, I think you want to say that science does its work here, without any theological input – hence no tension or conflict. Here I would disagree. I think there is empirical evidence for design. Not because of any gaps or inexplicable processes. But because the naturalistic processes that do not recognize any notion of a transcendent, immanent actively intelligent personal being are are simply insufficient. The naturalistic processes themselves depend on God for their own explanation.
One more point on the video. Ware speaks of investigation vs. revelation. Revelation is of course not confined to the Scriptures. Creation – the realm of scientific study – is revelation.
Yeah — I agree that “science is inadequate to fully explain them.” I also agree that naturalistic processes depend on God for their explanation. But the levels of “natural” (secondary) and Divine (primary) causation shouldn’t ordinarily be mixed.
I always use the example of a baby’s birth. We properly call this everyday event a special creative act of God — we’re fearfully and wonderfully made. But we don’t expect to “detect” this Divine providential activity at the level of secondary causation. We can describe the “natural” process of birth from conception on (though there’s still lots we don’t understand about embryology). “Science” describes the level of secondary causation — that’s all, and that’s it’s limit.
So where we’ll disagree is on whether ID is improperly mixing levels of causality (I think it is) and promoting an improperly strong natural theology (again, I think it is). I also think that aside from these philosophical / theological problems, ID’s empirical claims are weak on their own merits. But, smart people disagree about all this.
As I think you’ll notice, I don’t at all depend on ID’s particular empirical claims for my position, nor am I using their arguments generally [I don’t think]. At the same time, I think ID has become a bit of bogeyman to many, thus making it difficult to have a conversation like this, without invoking a host of other stuff.
As for issues of secondary and primary causation, a problem with popular evangelical thinking is a failure to grasp this vital theological concept – so it’s God did it vs. man did it or nature did it. So, of course, one level of explanation is not at the other’s expense. Yet, I do think they are mutual and interdependent and are both evidently present. To provide another, more stark, though imperfect, example from yours, efforts to separate science and theology might be more akin to discussing a surgery only from the perspective of what takes place in the patient’s body without any reference to the surgeon. On the one hand, this provides a level of explanation that is, on its own terms, adequate and meaningful and highly informative. On the other hand, the whole thing is inexplicable apart from the surgeon.
To a certain extent, I think we’re talking past one another here. I also get what you’re trying to do and promote. Still, the idea that study and investigation of the physical world overall and the human body in particular has no theological import strikes me as reductionistic.
Yeah maybe we’re saying different things. I certainly would never say that studying the physical world or the human body has no theological import! I’m with you in saying that everything we do or think or say has theological import — that theology really has to be our starting point (faith seeking understanding). I don’t think Ware was saying something else in the video — if he was then I wouldn’t agree with it.
8 replies on “Kallistos Ware on Faith and Science”
I have a lot of trouble with much of what he’s saying. If G_d decided to put into writing any facet of how the world was created, it shouldn’t be in contradiction to what the reality is (one could say our scientific method is wrong, but he’s not making that claim). His answer is basically, let’s just compartmentalize science and faith into different boxes and not think about one in the context of the other. That’s not a very satisfying answer.
Here’s, what I think, is a better explanation and an attempt at synthesis of the Bible’s account of creation and modern science by Dr. Gerald Schroeder…
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7143844201875642538#
Meh. I have no doubt that the good bishop is a wiser and more learned man than I am [I’m sure he’s flattered]. Yet, at the risk of overstatement, this strikes me as too simplistic, easy, naive and dualistic.
If God is the creator, sustainer and redeemer of all things, then surely there is at least a dynamic and tension here, which Bishop Ware, for understandable reasons, wishes to eliminate. Science of course relies on reason. Yet, the denial of God is a denial of that same reason. This does not mean of course that a scientist who denies God can’t draw valid conclusions from his investigations, which we can acknowledge and even admire. But it does mean that his doing so is in reliance on a truth he denies. Furthermore, philosophy, theology and ethics all precede and inform science. Thomas Kuhn was and is right.
This quote from Vern Poythress is insightful:
“Scientific law displays the attributes of God himself, such as omnipresence (the same in all places), immutability, immateriality, invisibility, transcendence (above the particular phenomena), immanence (touching on the particulars)…(some)scientists sometimes evade this testimony to God by trying to think that the laws that they investigate are impersonal, a kind of mindless mechanism… But (these) scientists still believe that the laws are fundamentally rational, and fundamentally language-like, so that they can be described in human language and thought through with human discourse. Rationality and complex language ability belong to persons, not to rocks and plants and worms. Scien(ce)clearly rel(ies) on the personal character of law.”
John — I’m not sure what that quote from Poythress buys you. Science and Christian faith are not in tension if “science” doesn’t wander into metaphysics — true. But if you want to go further and suggest that there is “empirical” evidence for “design” — meh right back. It’s just mixing methodologies the other way round.
Be careful with Kuhn, BTW — he is a metaphysical anti-realist, therefore a social constructivist all the way down, and therefore no friend to Christian faith.
I hear you about Kuhn. But just as we can receive insights from the non-Christian scientist, we can likewise do so from the philosopher, even if he too denies truths on which his “findings” depend.
What you and Ware seem to want to say is that things like beauty, wonder, goodness and love cannot be addressed by science. With this I agree. When we get into issues of language, mathematics and life, for example, the lines I think are not so strictly defined, though I think of course that science is inadequate to fully explain them. When it comes to naturalistic processes however, I think you want to say that science does its work here, without any theological input – hence no tension or conflict. Here I would disagree. I think there is empirical evidence for design. Not because of any gaps or inexplicable processes. But because the naturalistic processes that do not recognize any notion of a transcendent, immanent actively intelligent personal being are are simply insufficient. The naturalistic processes themselves depend on God for their own explanation.
One more point on the video. Ware speaks of investigation vs. revelation. Revelation is of course not confined to the Scriptures. Creation – the realm of scientific study – is revelation.
Yeah — I agree that “science is inadequate to fully explain them.” I also agree that naturalistic processes depend on God for their explanation. But the levels of “natural” (secondary) and Divine (primary) causation shouldn’t ordinarily be mixed.
I always use the example of a baby’s birth. We properly call this everyday event a special creative act of God — we’re fearfully and wonderfully made. But we don’t expect to “detect” this Divine providential activity at the level of secondary causation. We can describe the “natural” process of birth from conception on (though there’s still lots we don’t understand about embryology). “Science” describes the level of secondary causation — that’s all, and that’s it’s limit.
So where we’ll disagree is on whether ID is improperly mixing levels of causality (I think it is) and promoting an improperly strong natural theology (again, I think it is). I also think that aside from these philosophical / theological problems, ID’s empirical claims are weak on their own merits. But, smart people disagree about all this.
As I think you’ll notice, I don’t at all depend on ID’s particular empirical claims for my position, nor am I using their arguments generally [I don’t think]. At the same time, I think ID has become a bit of bogeyman to many, thus making it difficult to have a conversation like this, without invoking a host of other stuff.
As for issues of secondary and primary causation, a problem with popular evangelical thinking is a failure to grasp this vital theological concept – so it’s God did it vs. man did it or nature did it. So, of course, one level of explanation is not at the other’s expense. Yet, I do think they are mutual and interdependent and are both evidently present. To provide another, more stark, though imperfect, example from yours, efforts to separate science and theology might be more akin to discussing a surgery only from the perspective of what takes place in the patient’s body without any reference to the surgeon. On the one hand, this provides a level of explanation that is, on its own terms, adequate and meaningful and highly informative. On the other hand, the whole thing is inexplicable apart from the surgeon.
To a certain extent, I think we’re talking past one another here. I also get what you’re trying to do and promote. Still, the idea that study and investigation of the physical world overall and the human body in particular has no theological import strikes me as reductionistic.
Yeah maybe we’re saying different things. I certainly would never say that studying the physical world or the human body has no theological import! I’m with you in saying that everything we do or think or say has theological import — that theology really has to be our starting point (faith seeking understanding). I don’t think Ware was saying something else in the video — if he was then I wouldn’t agree with it.