1 Where Science Meets Worldviews Loren Haarsma Physics & Astronomy Department, Calvin College Science, Philosophy, & Ethics Symposium Grand Valley State University April 2, 2004

2 Rough & ready definition: your “worldview” is your basic assumptions and answers to questions like: What is the fundamental basis of reality? What, fundamentally, is a human being? How and why is knowledge possible? What is our ultimate goal in life?

3 Scholars’ worldviews play guiding roles in most scholarship In literature, history, psychology, economics, philosophy, and many other disciplines, scholars sometimes fundamentally disagree about methodology and conclusions ― because of their differing worldviews. “The values and worldviews that imply certain policy conclusions also form the foundations of the economic analyses that justify those conclusions.” --John Tiemstra, “Why Economists Disagree” Challenge: The Magazine of Economic Affairs

4 1.Why do natural scientists, who have many different worldviews, fundamentally agree about so much in their professional scholarship? 2.What role do our worldviews play in the practice of science?

5 Where science meets worldview: 1.The philosophical foundations for science. 2.Philosophical interpretations and extrapolations of science. 3.The biggest scientific mysteries. 4.When scientific knowledge interacts with other kinds of knowledge. 5.Motives, ethics, and social context of science.

6 1. Some “worldview” assumptions are NOT a helpful basis for science (Bill Waterson, Calvin and Hobbes)

7 There is a subset of “worldview” beliefs that seem necessary to do science, and are generally shared by scientists. 1.We can understand nature. 2.Nature typically operates with regular, repeatable, universal patterns. 3.Experiments are needed; theory is not enough. 4.Science is worth doing. These beliefs are meta-scientific. Many ancient cultures had some of those beliefs, but not others.

8 Shared worldview A theist might justify beliefs for science: these beliefs theologically 1.We can understand nature. 2.Nature typically operates with regular, repeatable, universal patterns. 3.Experiments are needed; theory is not enough. 4.Science is worth doing. 1.We are made in God’s image, gifted with abilities. 2.Nature is not filled with capricious gods, but ruled by one God in a faithful, consistent manner. 3.God’s creativity is free, we are limited. 4.We are called by God to do so, and we are studying God’s handiwork.

9 Shared worldview An atheist might justify beliefs for science: these beliefs thus: 1.We can understand nature. 2.Nature typically operates with regular, repeatable, universal patterns. 3.Experiments are needed; theory is not enough. 4.Science is worth doing. 1.Intelligence and the ability to predict are adaptive. 2.Matter simply has these properties; & the material world is all there is. 3.Our intelligence and rationality have only evolved so far. 4.Science is interesting, knowledge brings power to help ourselves and others.

10 1. Science meets worldview at the philosophical foundations for science Scientists don’t all share the same worldview, but they do share a crucial subset of worldview beliefs that make science possible. No single worldview ― atheist, theist, or other ― can claim “ownership” of science. Scientific knowledge and the scientific method are compatible with multiple worldviews. Scientists of differing worldviews can work side-by-side to study the properties, functioning, and history of the natural world, using the same methods and reaching consensus on scientific conclusions.

11 2.Science meets worldview when scientific knowledge is interpreted and extrapolated by our worldview assumptions (Cartoon by Berkeley Breathed, Bloom County)

12 Interpretation of Natural Laws Scientific view, generally shared by scientists: There are understandable, universal, predictable patterns of cause and effect in nature which we discover through experiment and theory, which we call “natural laws.” An atheistic or deistic interpretation: God either doesn’t exist, or is not involved. “These [natural] laws may have originally been decreed by God, but it appears that he has since left the universe to evolve according to them and does not now intervene in it.” -- Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

13 Interpretation of Natural Laws Scientific view, generally shared by scientists: There are understandable, universal, predictable patterns of cause and effect in nature which we discover through experiment and theory, which we call “natural laws.” One theistic interpretation: “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” ---Sir Isaac Newton God is not absent from events which we can explain scientifically; rather, natural laws describe how God usually governs creation. (e.g. Psalm 104:19-21)

14 Interpretation of Random events Scientific view, generally shared by scientists: Many events have outcomes which include an element of randomness. The final outcome cannot be completely predicted in terms of initial conditions and natural laws. They are modeled probabilistically. (e.g. the weather, mutations, quantum events) One theistic interpretation: May be one way God can subtly interact with creation, e.g. by “selecting” an outcome. (e.g. Proverbs 16:33) May indicate God’s gift of capabilities and limited freedom to creation. *Analogies of genetic algorithms in engineering and art.

15 Interpretation of Random events Scientific view, generally shared by scientists: Many events have outcomes which include an element of randomness. The final outcome cannot be completely predicted in terms of initial conditions and natural laws. They are modeled probabilistically. (e.g. the weather, mutations, quantum events) One atheistic interpretation: Random events are fundamentally uncaused, undirected. “Some shrink from the conclusion that the human species was not designed, has no purpose, and is the product of mere mechanical mechanisms ― but this seems to be the message of evolution.” --Douglas Futuyma, Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution

16 2. Scientific knowledge is interpreted and extrapolated by our worldview Our shared scientific knowledge about the deterministic and probabilistic “laws of nature” has lead to a general scientific consensus about the history, present functioning, and extrapolated future of the material universe (e.g. big bang cosmology, geological history, biological evolution). These results from science allow multiple worldview interpretations. When teaching students, or doing public speaking or writing, a scientist ought to be aware of when he or she is going beyond generally-agreed science into worldview interpretations ― and candidly admit this.

17 3. Science meets worldview at the biggest scientific mysteries (cartoon by Sidney Harris)

18 Scientists try to build empirical models of past and present events based on known natural laws plus information about the conditions before, during, and after the event. Attempts to build empirical models meet with varying degrees of success. For example: –“Explained” events (e.g. supernovae) –“Partially explained” events (e.g. zygotic development) –“Unexplainable” events, with good reasons to rule out models employing only known natural laws. (e.g. source of the Big Bang)

19 How do scientists deal with “unexplainable” events? No consensus. Individual scientists could reach one of (at least) five meta-scientific conclusions: 1.Unknown natural law 2.Supernatural event 3.Super-human technology 4.Improbable event that simply occurred 5.Improbable event, but Many Universes These five are very different from each other philosophically, but play virtually identical roles in scientific arguments.

20 “Unexplainable” events Historical example: Late 1800’s ― unknown energy source of the sun. (Later discovered to be nuclear fusion.) Modern examples: The source of the Big Bang and apparent “fine tuning” of the laws of nature for life. *There are some cosmologists today advocating each of those five meta-scientific conclusions. Most scientists classify consciousness and first life on earth as “partially explained,” although a few argue that one or both are “unexplainable.” *Those scientists who favor “unexplainable” disagree with each other about which of those five meta- scientific conclusions is best.

21 3. Science meets worldview at the biggest scientific mysteries Scientists can, at least in principle, reach consensus on whether a certain event is explained, partially explained, or unexplainable in terms of known natural laws. Worldview plays an important role in choosing a meta-scientific hypothesis for events currently considered “unexplainable.”

22 4. Scientific knowledge interacts with other kinds of knowledge (cartoon by Sidney Harris)

23 Other commons sources of knowledge: –Historical information –Personal experience –Social knowledge (experience of others) –Revealed knowledge Every day we make decisions based these types of knowledge. When we take a vaccine, we trust science. An historian might risk her career to publish an unpopular hypothesis, if she believe she has reliable historical evidence. You might trust a friend based on your personal experiences, which no one else shares. You might give a lot of time and money to a charity which has a good reputation.

24 Ignoring non-scientific knowledge, and reducing everything to a materialistic level of explanation, falls into the fallacy of “nothing but.” Example: “A Shakespearean sonnet is nothing but ink on paper.” The sonnet could be described by ink-blot coordinates on a page. This description would be complete on its own level, and useful for programming an ink-jet printer. But if you ignore the historical, poetic, emotional, social levels of description you miss the most important levels for most purposes in life. Example: “Human beings are nothing but organic machines built by their genes for reproduction.” To avoid the fallacy but retain the partial truth, replace the words “nothing but” with “not just.”

25 Our worldview, and all of our sources of knowledge (including scientific), inform our decisions ― from the smallest choices to life-long “faith commitments.” Examples of faith commitments: –Faith in a friend, a spouse, a group. –Religious faith. –Faith in a political philosophy or system (e.g. a commitment to support democracy). –Faith in the peer review system (something which scientists trust most of the time).

26 The rationality of faith commitments Many people use the word “faith” to mean “believing in some idea despite lack of evidence or despite contradictory evidence.” This is NOT a helpful definition. A better definition of a “faith commitment” to a friend, a group, or a deity is: –Trusting in their character and ability to keep their promises. –Acting “in good faith” towards them. –Being faithful in difficult circumstances.

27 A “faith commitment” could be unreasonable, or very reasonable The opposite of Reason is Irrationality. The opposite of Skepticism is Gullibility. The opposite of Doubt is Certainty. A good word for the opposite of Faith is Unbelief. –Both are deliberate choices about how to live your life. Either can be chosen because of a lot of evidence, a little evidence, or even despite evidence.

28 4. Scientific knowledge interacts with other kinds of knowledge Scientific knowledge informs, augments, and sometimes corrects other kinds of knowledge. Scientific knowledge does not replace or invalidate other levels of description based on other kinds of knowledge. Assuming no real contradictions, scientific knowledge does not invalidate reasonable decisions or reasonable faith commitments based on other types of knowledge.

29 5. Worldviews inform the motives, ethics, and social context of science (cartoon by Sidney Harris)

30 5. Worldviews inform the motives, ethics, and social context of science Scientists can and do have vast areas of agreement about the motives, ethics, and social context of doing science. Because scientists have many different worldviews, there are bound to be some areas of disagreement.

31 Scientists might agree about a scientific goal, but disagree about the ethics of how to reach that goal. For example: the goal of learning how to modify cells from adults to act as stem cells to treat various diseases and injuries. One scientist might conclude that it is unethical to create and destroy human embryos for research; so the techniques should first be worked out on other primates. Another scientist might conclude that careful embryo use is both ethical and desirable to speed research, so that lives can be saved sooner.

32 Scientists might agree about a scientific finding, but disagree about the social and political implications of that finding. For example: scientists can reach consensus on what the data and the best climate models predict about global warming over the next several decades. Scientists might still disagree with each other about the best political and economic actions to take in the face of those predictions.

33 Scientists don’t necessarily share all the same motives and goals for doing science. One might be motivated to do science, in part, to bring greater praise and glory to God. Another might be motivated to do science, in part, to help advance atheism and eventually eradicate religion. But scientists of different worldviews do share many of the same motives and goals.

34 Scientists share many motives and goals. Harvard Society of Fellows Declaration of Principles: "You have been selected as a member of this society for your personal prospect of serious achievement in your chosen field, and your promise of notable contribution to knowledge and thought. That promise you must redeem with your whole intellectual and moral force. You will practice the virtues, and avoid the snares, of the scholar. You will be courteous to your elders who have explored to the point from which you may advance; and helpful to your juniors who will progress farther by reason of your labors. Your aim will be knowledge and wisdom, not the reflected glamour of fame. You will not accept credit that is due to another, or harbor jealousy of an explorer who is more fortunate. You will seek not a near but a distant objective, and you will not be satisfied with what you may have done. All that you may achieve or discover you will regard as a fragment of a larger pattern of the truth which from the separate approaches every true scholar is striving to descry. To these things, in joining the Society of Fellows, you dedicate yourself."

35 Why care about worldviews? Know thyself. Your motives, ethics, and goals for science come from your worldview. Understand your colleagues better. Debates are more informed and more productive when you have a better understanding of the source of your disagreements. When teaching students or doing public speaking or writing, a scientist should be aware of when he or she goes beyond generally-agreed science into worldview interpretations, and candidly admit this.