philosophy of science

Has Science Made God Unnecessary?

/ Apologetics, Plugs / 1 Comment

One of the most frequently encountered objections to Christianity is that modern science has rendered belief in God intellectually untenable, along with many other central tenets of the Christian faith. This is closely related to what has been dubbed the “conflict thesis”: the idea that there is a deep and ultimately irresolvable conflict between science and religion. The objection arises in various forms. Sometimes it’s the claim that we no longer need to believe in God, because science has adequately explained in naturalistic terms what was previously ascribed to divine agency; the “God of the gaps” has been squeezed out as the ‘gaps’ have been filled. Sometimes it’s the criticism that Christianity depends on miracle claims (spoiler: it does) but such claims are at odds with a scientific view of the world, since miraculous events would violate the laws of nature. Sometimes it’s the charge that Christian doctrines irreconcilably conflict with well-established scientific theories, such as the Darwinian evolutionary account of human origins.

Has Science Made God Unnecessary?In the sixth book in The Big Ten series, Ransom Poythress tackles head-on these objections and others in the same vein. But he goes further still, pulling back “the curtain of science” to reveal the philosophical assumptions behind the methods of science, and arguing that Christian theism provides a far better justification for those assumptions than atheistic materialism. On closer inspection, it’s not so much that science vindicates Christianity as that Christianity vindicates science. Poythress also debunks a number of popular myths (such as the conflict thesis) along the way. If you have skeptical friends, colleagues, or family members who cite “modern science” as a reason to reject Christianity, consider giving them a copy of this book. It may not convert them, but at least it will move the conversation in a more informed and productive direction.

Here are two of the endorsements for Has Science Made God Unnecessary?:

Through the use of simple yet powerful analogies, an easygoing pace, and excellent references for those who want to dig deeper, Poythress reaches any interested reader with an answer that affirms Christianity while respecting and encouraging the proper roles of science. This is a great book for any youth group, college class, or seeker to think through. — John A. Bloom, Professor of Physics & Director of the MA, Science and Religion program, Biola University, La Mirada, California and author of The Natural Sciences: A Student’s Guide

Ransom Poythress is both an accomplished biologist and a knowledgeable biblical scholar. His commitment is to both the craft of science and the awareness of the reasons people throw up objections to its compatibility with Christian faith. He writes in a sympathetic, non-combative manner which ought to disarm all but the most obdurate sceptic. A must read by anyone concerned with the so-called science-vs-religion controversy. — William Edgar, Professor of Apologetics, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Here’s the table of contents:

  • Acknowledgements
  • Introduction: Understanding the Question
  • 1 The Conflict Thesis
  • 2 God of the Gaps Arguments
  • 3 Behind the Curtain of Science, Part I: Objectivity and Truth
  • 4 Behind the Curtain of Science, Part II: Materialist Assumptions
  • 5 Behind the Curtain of Science, Part III: Materialist Limitations
  • 6 Behind the Curtain of Science, Part IV: What’s Actually Necessary for Science
  • 7 Behind the Curtain of Science, Part V: Scientific Laws
  • 8 Behind the Curtain of Science, Part VI: Supernatural Assumptions and a Christian Philosophical Foundation for Science
  • 9 Miracles
  • 10 Evidence: What Does it Look Like?
  • 11 Big Bang and Fine-Tuning
  • 12 Origin of Life
  • 13 Evolution: the Big Picture
  • 14 Evolution: Darwin’s Defenders
  • Conclusion
  • Appendix: Additional Resources

As you can see, the chapter count is higher than for the other books in The Big Ten series. However, the page count is roughly the same — around 200 pages — which means that the book has shorter, more digestible chapters, and that’s a virtue for a book that delves into some semi-technical philosophical and scientific issues.

Incidentally, Dr. Poythress is the author of Richard Dawkins in P&R’s Great Thinkers series. Also recommended!

Answering Some Questions on the Theological Foundations of Modern Science

/ Apologetics, Philosophy / 8 Comments

Modern ScienceSome time ago I received “a few questions from an amateur philosopher” about my article “The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God: The Theological Foundations of Modern Science.” With his permission, I’m reproducing them here with some brief answers.

1) I agree that it seems unlikely for natural selection to actively select for higher order thinking, but isn’t it possible that the same logical reasoning that natural selection would select for to allow for higher probabilities of survival also provides the faculties that allow the higher order thinking, i.e. that the first being “truth-oriented” by necessity simply provided a general “truth” oriented system of thinking that we use in all our conscious thought? Are those things really so different? Relatedly, it seems strange to assume that natural selection only selects for physical traits – why wouldn’t it also select for cognitive advantages?

I’ll start with the last question. The reason that evolutionary processes would only select for physical traits is that, given naturalism and the causal closure of the physical world, only physical traits can causally influence behavior. Mental events would be epiphenomena at best: caused by underlying physical (brain) events, but not making any causal contribution to those events. There would be no “top down” causation from the mental to the physical. Thus, cognition (understood as mental processes, not merely brain processes) would be ‘invisible’ to natural selection and to evolutionary forces in general. I actually explained this at some length in the article (see the three paragraphs in section II beginning “In the first place…”).

But suppose that natural selection could select for cognitive advantages and thus for lower-order thinking. Isn’t higher-order thinking just a natural extension of lower-order thinking? I don’t think so. For example, our ability to do integral calculus isn’t merely an extension of our ability to count. It requires a grasp of concepts that go beyond simple addition and subtraction. Likewise, our ability to use language to express complex abstract ideas goes far beyond our ability to ‘name’ (i.e., attach labels to) the physical objects we experience with our senses. There’s simply no good reason to think that undirected evolutionary processes, driven by sheer biological efficiency, would select for these higher-order cognitive capabilities over time. (Remember that on the standard Darwinian gradualist view, it’s not enough for the “final product” to be advantageous; every incremental step of the development must be advantageous enough to become fixed in the population.)

…

Answering Some Questions on the Theological Foundations of Modern ScienceRead More »

The Theological Foundations of Modern Science

/ Apologetics, Philosophy, Theology

Last week I had the privilege of giving the 2018 Tarwater Lecture at Queens University of Charlotte. The title of the lecture: “The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God: The Theological Foundations of Modern Science.” Here’s the video:

Bonus points if you catch the numerical lapsus linguae in the first section!