Something I wish non-scientists knew about scientists

Scientists have diverse philosophical, political, and religious views.
Just like any human community (e.g., Indians, lawyers, Canadians, football fans, ...)

Sometimes people ask me things like: are all scientists (except you) atheists?
Are all scientists political liberals?
Do all scientists believe that ...?

But, when it comes to well established scientific knowledge (Einstein's relativity, genetics, thermodynamics, evolution, climate change, the age of the earth, chemistry, ....) we are united and have the same view. The evidence is overwhelming.

How to interpret that knowledge philosophically is another matter.
Views are diverse. Science is not philosophy. Different interpretations are possible.

A recent book  by sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund looked at the diverse religious views of a group of scientists.

For a related issue see
10 Scientific Ideas That Scientists Wish You Would Stop Misusing

Deconstructing the face of evil

I really enjoyed the movie Hannah Arendt. It is based on the true story of the philosopher-political theorist who wrote a controversial account and analysis of the trial of the Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann. Rather than simply condemn him as a monster, Arendt considered his "mediocrity" and complete lack of humanity with his notions of "loyalty", "just following orders" and bureaucratic procedures. He had lost the ability to actually think and make moral judgements, a defining essence of humanity. This led to her coining the phrase "the banality of evil". Eichmann was "simply doing his job."



The impressive climax of the movie is the speech that Arendt gives to a group of her students, and some of her critical faculty colleagues, where she defends her perspective.

A problem with presuppositional apologetics

Presuppositional apologetics, as advocated by Cornelius Van Til is popular in some circles. Although there are certain sentiments behind it that I have sympathy with, it can be quite problematic, particularly in practical application, and its attitude to secular scholarship.

The latest issue of Science and Christian Belief has a review of a recent book What the Heavens Declare: Science in the Light of Creation by Lydia Jaeger.
The reviewer, William Simpson, has the following valuable insight.

Unfortunately the presuppositional school persistently confuses the ‘order of knowing’ with the ‘order of being’: from the insistence that God is ‘the foundation of everything that exists’, it simply does not follow that we must begin with God’s existence in order to explain anything. 

For example: in the order of being, the university town of St Andrews precedes any road sign that points to it; the one, presumably, would not be present without the other. In the order of knowing, however, the road signs may precede the town for a traveller trying to find his way to it. The theological twist behind the epistemic slip is more serious: in Calvin’s nomenclature, it involves an unbiblical refusal to seek common ground, grounded in common grace, with non-Christians.

A Christian physicist on rationality

Andrew Steane is a Professor of Physics at Oxford. He has recently published a book Faithful to Science: The role of religion in Science. I am looking forward to reading it.

On the Oxford University Press site he has an interesting blogpost Questioning the question: religion and rationality. It gives the flavour of his thinking and writing. His blog also explores these issues.

A cogent case for Christian Platonism

The next book for the monthly theology reading and discussion group is Returning to Reality: Christian Platonism for our times by Paul Tyson. One thing that is a little different is that the author is a member of the discussion group!

Christian Platonism holds that the unseen God really is the present source and ongoing ground of all created reality. Further, Christian Platonism holds that the qualities of beauty, goodness, and truth, wherever they are in some measure discovered, are divine revelations of real meanings that give the world in which we live its value and purpose.

page 3.

From revolution to disillusion

Adam Michnik, a historian who helped to overthrow the Soviets in Poland, once said: 

“Revolutions have two phases: first comes a struggle for freedom, then a struggle for power. The first makes the human spirit soar and brings out the best in people. The second unleashes the worst: envy, intrigue, greed, suspicion and the urge for revenge.”

This is in fascinating article about Iran,  The revolution is over, in a recent issue of The Economist.

Comparing leading newspapers in India

Like on my last trip to India I took the newspaper daily. It costs 4 rupees (about 8 cents!). Following my thoughts from last time, I got The Hindu, rather than The Times of India. I was glad I did. I thought the coverage and analysis was much better, and thankfully there wasn't the pages of Bollywood gossip, that the Times reports.

It was interesting to be reading the reports of the G20 Summit in Brisbane from an Indian perspective. It was also embarrassing and frustrating to read reports about the Australian government's policies and actions on Ebola, refugees, and climate change.

This advert nicely captures the difference between the Hindu and The Times.



A similar one is here.