In the last post in this series I suggested that one of the important issues in the current discussion of science and faith in our culture deals with knowing; how do we "know" and understand? None of us can know everything in every subject. How many of us really understand particle physics, quantum mechanics, genetics, geophysics, ANE culture and language, or how many of us read Greek and have real expertise in 1st century Roman and Jewish culture? We all trust authorities for much of our knowledge. In this post I want to consider the importance of authority and expertise in the discussion of science and faith.
The key question today is this - What authorities do you trust and how do you decide? What is the ranking order of your authorities from top to bottom? Does that ranking order shift from subject to subject? How do you find authorities you can trust? How authoritative is your pastor for what you believe?
Most Christians who reject the arguments for evolution, common descent,
or the age of the earth have no real understanding of the issues
involved or the depth of the evidence. But this isn't just a
Christian problem of course. Studies also show that many (likely most) Americans
who claim to believe in natural selection have no real understanding of
evolution and are unable to describe how natural selection works. Why do they believe what they believe?
In the absence of expertise, we evaluate the source of a claim or assertion. If the source is deemed trustworthy the claim is believed.
This is a far-reaching practice and extends beyond scientific or technical knowledge. I suspect that the average Christian evaluates many claims and assertions relating to theology and doctrine in the same manner - by evaluating the credibility of the source and trusting those deemed authoritative.
Of course, on one level this reliance on authorities and experts is necessary. None of us can possibly know everything about everything. None of us can master the body of human wisdom - the acquired knowledge of the human race.
But this practice leads to some real dissonance.
The vast majority of Christians who truly understand the evidence
for the age of the earth take an ancient earth as a given.
The vast majority of Christians who truly understand the
paleontological or genetic evidence take the general schema of
evolution as a given. This is not to say that we understand everything
- there are legitimate questions that can be raised. But the general scheme holds.
Christian Scholars who really dig into Biblical Studies have a very
hard time assenting to the positions of the conservative systematic
theologians on many issues related to scripture.
Yet the irony of this whole situation is that even within the church we respect our own expertise - but feel free to doubt, question, or disregard the expert conclusions of our fellow Christians. We question the authority of experts and accept the authority of other sources, often without looking at the evidence. The geologists will insist on old earth but feel free to doubt evolution; the biologists will insist on evolution but feel free to doubt the archaeologists; the biblical scholars will insist that we look honestly at the development of the OT from the sources and the incorporation of ANE myth to tell a theological truth, but feel free to doubt the genetic evidence for common descent.
Which brings us back to the key question we must ponder and discuss: As Christians how should we evaluate claims and assertions requiring technical knowledge? Which experts should we trust and why? And how do we decide between conflicting claims of expertise?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Jason: Interesting that you bringing up the concept of nested hierarchy. Nested hierarchy is a legitimate biological classification system, but it is just that, a man made classification system based an interpretation or presupposition regarding facts. Nested hierarchy is not a “fact” itself and does not support a common descent unless one agrees with the presuppositions.
Rick,
The genomic evidence for common descent is a collection of facts.
One can always construct a much more complicated explanation for the facts. Common descent is by far the most consistent and coherent explanation.
You know though - the biggest problem I have with the presupposition argument you are making is that the only people in the world who know the evidence and still disagree with the general concept of common descent are those who are operating under the presupposition that common descent is wrong, usually on the basis of interpretation of scripture.
One of my big tests of whether I can count someone as authoritative is to check and see if they are able to present the position of those they disagree with fairly and accurately. If they distort the view of those who disagree with them when it comes to the particulars of the matter, then I generally do not trust them. Of course, sometimes people are nasty, unkind and unfair to the people they disagree with. But it is their handling of the facts presented by the other side which I look at.
The other thing I make a regular point of doing is actually seeking out contrary perspectives. If I read something and think it makes sense, I make a point of finding someone who argues against that idea or information to see if others have picked out problems I may have missed. Sometimes I find that information which originally seemed correct is actually riddled with errors, excluded information and the like. Other times, I find that the arguments against the point are inaccurate, illogical or lacking in substance.
I guess at the bottom, I try to make a point of finding the best argument from each side of an issue that I can and evaluate from there. And never, ever, ever rely on one side to accurately portray their opponent's position.
Rick,
I said,
When presented with this evidence, the seldom understand the nested hierarchy is not just an arbitrary classification
and then you said Nested hierarchy is a legitimate biological classification system, but it is just that, a man made classification system
You see, I anticipated your very response and I got it anyway:) Well, suffice to say, I categorically deny you assertion. I do NOT believe a nested hierarchy is an arbitrary classification. If I were to find a bird with mamery glands I could not fit it into a nested hierarchy with other species and common descent would be falsified. Likewise, if I shared an ERV with a dog, in the exact same chromosomal location, but not with any animal "in between", like a chimpanzee or gorilla, then common descent would be falsified. I have had this back and forth so many times I don't want to waste any more of the seconds I have on this earth to type it out. For a good overview, see http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/FEvolutionCase.htm
Either way, I feel this supports my initial position. We don't agree on the evidence. We don't even agree what a nested hierarchy is (that is, if you think it is arbitrary). Once we agree on what it is we can start worrying about interpretation.
"check and see if they are able to present the position of those they disagree with fairly and accurately"
Rebeccat for the win.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.