Issues in Christian scholarship

This week at the Volfians group we will be discussing the short book Reason within the bounds of religion by Nicholas Wolterstorff.

There is a very helpful summary of the book by Michael Wilson.
Here is my summary of the summary!

Every scholar must choose:

1. what specific subject to investigate
2. what views to hold on that particlar subject

Wolterstorff suggests that a Christian scholar should have distinct views and practice relating to both these issues. To consider, the second, he reviews foundationalism and its failures.

Foundationalism is the classic Western philosophical perspective on theory construction.
One starts with a foundation of specific assumptions that are certain or self-evident. From this foundation one uses inference to demonstrate the certainty of new propositions.

Wolterstorff considers three different types of foundationalism:

1. Complementarism.
Following, Aquinas, faith and reason are considered to be complementary to one another.
Believers and unbelievers can both apprehend the truth of certain matters.

2. Preconditionalist Foundationalism.
"I believe in order that I might understand."
Augustine, Anselm, and Calvin had this view.
Unbelief can prevent apprehension of some matters.

3. Incorporationism.
Followed by many modern Protestants.
"everything the Bible teaches, ..., is incorporated within a body of foundational certitudes."

Foundationalism has significant problems as a self-consistent philosophy. "Many theories that seemingly warrant acceptance are not deducible from any foundation. The example is given of the claim, "all swans have wings." A strict foundationalist can only accept this if they exam all the swans in the world.
The problem is distinguishing between certainty and what is true with high probability.
Furthermore, foundationalism does not provide a justification for induction.

Falsification [Karl Popper's alternative to foundationalism] is not the solution. No theory stands alone. If some experimental result is inconsistent with a theory one does not then always abandon the theory. One may instead reject the experimental result as unreliable.

How does one actually weigh the evidence for a theory?
This is influenced by three things.

a. Data beliefs
Decisions about what data is valid and what is not.

b. Data background beliefs
Criteria one uses to accept some and reject some data.

c. Control beliefs
Criteria that one uses to assess whether a theory itself is an acceptable candidate theory.
Examples include  aesthetics, logical structure, or consistency with another theory.

Wolterstorff suggests that some Christian scholars make the supremacy of science as a control belief. In particular, "Christian commitment [does not] enter into the devising or weighing of theories within the sciences." [page 82]. Furthermore, Christian scholars seldom "suggest any research programs within the sciences" [page 105].

Finally, he turns to issue 1. above: what subjects should a Christian scholar investigate. He contrasts "pure theory" and "praxis-oriented theory." The relative priority is based on "deciding which holds the most promise of contributing most substantially to the cause of in-justice shalom." [page 133-134].

"in justice shalom" means that the "goal of human existence is that man should dwell at peace in all his relationships: with God, with himself, with his fellows, with nature, a peace which is not merely the absence of hostility, though it certainly is that, but a peace which at its highest is enjoyment." [page 114]

This is certainly a challenge for Christian scholarship.

Limited human autonomy

I am reading through the book of Daniel and it is striking how the theme of limited human autonomy (especially of the powerful) occurs. A key phrase is repeated several times (e.g., Daniel 4:25):
"know that the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will"
Indeed, both King Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar are severely humbled because they do not acknowledge their limited autonomy.
It is also striking that Daniel and his friends were promising young scholars (Daniel 1:17):
As for these four youths, God gave them learning and skill in all literature and wisdom, and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams.
This is all in the context of visions of the Son of Man to whom God gives all glory and honour and power and dominion (Daniel 7:14).

Towards a Christian perspective on academic disciplines

Last Saturday I went to a really helpful and stimulating Simeon Network workshop which included a discussion of "Deconstructing an academic discipline". A key to doing this is to actually being clear on the subject, methodology, values, guiding principles, and foundational assumptions within the discipline. Until these are defined it will be difficult to actually develop a Christian discipline.

However, I wonder whether there is more to the story. Specifically, I would like to distinguish the following:

How is the discipline meant to be practised?
How is the discipline actually practised?
How as a Christian, should I practice it?

For example, everyone will agree that science is about evidence, reason, objectivity, reproducibility of results, developing and testing hypotheses....

But, I believe that is not how it is practised. I would claim that many of the conclusions that I see in scientific papers are actually not justified based on the data that is present.

As I Christian, I am mindful of the sinful nature of humanity and the resulting tendency we have to "believe what we want to believe". Hence, I should have a greater scepticism towards the claims of others and a wariness of my own abilities and commitment to reason. This should double my commitment to way the discipline is meant to be practised.

King Solomon was a fallen scholar

Previously I have posted about fallen scholars: people who had great intellects and produced seminal and influential scholarly works, but had their own personal moral failures. Should we dismiss their ideas? Or should we overlook their personal failings and focus on the relative merits of their ideas? Is such a separation of the person and their ideas really possible?

Only today I realised there is actually a significant precedent in the Bible: King Solomon. He was a wise man who was one of the leading scholars of his time (see 1 Kings 4:29-34). Yet he had many wives, worshiped idols, exploited his people, and failed as a parent. The Bible does not endorse his behaviour but does endorse his teachings.

A model Christian academic

This morning I read this fascinating obituary from the Times of Professor Donald Wiseman (1918-2010). I read it because one of his students, David Baker (Ashland Seminary) is coming to Brisbane to teach an MA subject on the Joseph Narrative at Queensland Theological College.

Scientific gobbledygook

I am working on my review of the book Mind, Brain and the Elusive Soul: Human Systems of Cognitive Science and Religion, by Mark Graves.

The review is for the journal Science and Christian Belief

The question the book addresses is, “How do contemporary investigations in cognitive and brain science, pragmatic philosophy, and emergent systems theory impact upon a theological understanding of soul and spirit?” (p. 207).

So what are cognitive science and "emergent systems theory"? The Wikipedia entries on Cognitive science and Systems theory give a good introduction and overview to these enterprises. To me, cognitive science is a legitimate and exciting enterprise involving multiple academic disciplines. It is populated by many leading researchers from a range of disciplines and has made important contributions to our understanding of how the brain works and functions (and does not function at times).

However, in distinct contrast "emergent systems theory" seems to be a "theory of everything" that is "going to change the world." It is promoted by people such as Ervin Laszlo who do not hold regular academic positions and argue for highly speculative positions that are well outside the scientific mainstream. Wikipedia states that Lazlo's 2004 book:

Science and the Akashic Field: An Integral Theory of Everything posits a field of information as the substance of the cosmos. Using the Sanskrit and Vedic term for "space", Akasha, he calls this information field the "Akashic field" or "A-field". He posits that the "quantum vacuum" (see Vacuum state) is the fundamental energy and information-carrying field that informs not just the current universe, but all universes past and present (collectively, the "Metaverse").

László describes how such an informational field can explain why our universe appears to be fine-tuned as to form galaxies and conscious lifeforms; and why evolution is an informed, not random, process. He believes that the hypothesis solves several problems that emerge from quantum physics, especially nonlocality and quantum entanglement.

I regret to say that this is just scientific "gobbledygook". It claims connections and research results that are not valid.

Two scholars asks hard questions

RJS (a Chemistry professor) has a thoughtful post A Mind for Truth? concerning a recent controversy about an interview of the distinguished Old Testament scholar, Bruce Waltke, that was posted on the Biologos website. The Biologos review of the history of the controversy is here.

Balancing specialisation with the big picture

Due to a committee responsibility I am being forced to think more about research in theological colleges. Why is research important? What kind of research should colleges encourage and support? How is this best done?

Leigh Trevaskis recommended to me a Forum piece at the Society for Biblical Literature, with Michael Bird and Craig Keener, The Case for Generalist Scholars in Biblical Scholarship.

The article is a nice succinct summary of the importance of balancing specialisation with the broader context.
I would only add a couple of points.

* this balance is important in any area of scholarship, particularly in the sciences. I say this as someone who might be called a generalist working at the interface of physics, chemistry, and materials science.

* it is stated, "historically many of the scholars of anicient or modern times with the greatest impact have been generalists" and several are listed.
Surely, Karl Barth should be on that list. I would contend that he was a generalist and that his influence extended way beyond dogmatic theology to Biblical studies. For example, read Brueggemann's introduction to his Old Testament theology.

*Six concrete practical suggestions are made as to how younger scholars can achieve the healthy balance. One suggestion I would add is:

Talk to colleagues in different areas.
Go to seminars and conferences in different areas.
Organise and attend conferences that cover a range of topics and areas (not just say textual and cultural approaches to the New Testament) : theological, historical, Old Testament and New Testament. This is a very efficient way to get "up to speed" on areas outside your specialisation.

Some of these broader considerations are behind the program at this weeks AA-CC conference.

Evangelical Biblical scholarship: the legacy of F.F. Bruce

As a prelude to the AA-CC conference this week I enjoyed reading this post on Mike Bird's excellent blog, F.F. Bruce on evangelical scholarship.

F.F. Bruce was clearly a model Christian academic, with a commitment to Christ and to:

* intellectual integrity and real scholarship
* engagement with the secular university
* mentoring a new generation of scholars