In class, I was definitely challenged by what was said about science. Like a few fellow classmates, I too believed that science involved experiments and research. My whole life I have been told that science was doing things for an exact purpose and to figure something out. I was very interested by the idea that science it merely doing something that you are interested in. This could be extremely useful in teaching elementary children.
Why has science been turned into something that our students do not enjoy? As teachers, we will have the ability to change that. We can make science something that is more exciting for students by allowing them some choice in what and how we do things. Yes, there will be some things that we have to teach our students and some subjects that students will like more over others. However, what is stopping us as teachers from giving our students the liberty of choice in how they learn or choice on what they specifically study?
As a Christian I, despite what was said in class, use science to remind me how big and detail-oriented God is. I personally did not agree with our discussion on Scientific Naturalism because I believe that characteristics of God can be shown by science and research. I also believe that God can be used to fill in some of the gaps in science. I believe that asking a true Christian to step outside of their Christian mindset to have a secular view on something is impossible. When I became a Christian, I allowed the Holy Spirit to come inside me. To ask me as a scientist to get out of that mindset would be like asking someone born and raised in France to stop being French. I do not believe it is possible.
I can relate to your struggles with our discussion of methodological naturalism and do not wish to sway you one way or the other, but want to give you some things to think about and perhaps give my own take on things that you can take or leave.
ReplyDelete1) be careful with the "gaps" argument as what happens as the gaps get smaller? Does God get smaller? Science is really good at identifying and closing gaps. At one time we didn't understand how species got across oceans, but now science can explain this through plate tectonics.
2) Taking on a secular view and adopting methodological naturalism are not necessarily the same. One can understand how science does not use God as an explanation and still believe in God. We will be addressing this question again in class, so I don't want to give away too much yet :)
3) I see God/faith and science as existing on two planes. The science plane is limited by human abilities (because science is done by humans). The science plane can help me understand how nature works or how to make new medicine (but that is kinda technology). My "God plane" is not limited by human understanding and is useful for guiding my life in moral decisions. I think about playing two different games (say, chess and monopoly). Each game has a different purpose with different rules. If I tried to play chess with the rules of Monopoly, it wouldn't make sense. Much is the same when people try to play the game of science with the rules of faith. How can i get evidence (cause science is based on evidence) for God? Doesn't God actually say "Do not test me?"
I hope you continue to wrestle with these ideas. My main point with bringing these issues up in class is to note that we do not have to choose between science and faith, each is powerful in their own ways. I hope you'll continue to raise issues both on your blog and in class.
The interface of science and religion is of great interest to me. I worked with my high school's FCA and my church's youth group and also taught Evolution in the classroom, so I spent a lot of time working out for myself how these two seemingly separate ideas might be reconciled. I would love to recommend further reading or just discuss these issues at anytime!