Science and faith workshops

[Saskia Scott]

Hi everyone,

I've got a question to pitch to you all. I am currently beginning the process of developing workshops for high school kids regarding science and faith in God. Since I am neither a biologist, geologist nor a theologian I am not going to deal with areas such as old/young earth or evolution versus creation. I do not have the skill, and I also feel that these discussions are covered elsewhere.

My aim with these workshops is to explore the relationship between science and faith, the history and practice of science (as a human endeavour), and to get kids thinking about their worldviews. The idea is for them to get past the idea that science has somehow disproved God and reach an understanding that faith in God is intellectually feasible, and that science can enhance faith in God; also that belief in God brings a new richness to scientific discovery.

I also want to give kids tools to investigate further in this area and any related area.

With that in mind:

Do you have any ideas for engaging activities (especially ones using props) that we could incorporate into the workshops?

Do you know any good websites, especially ones that are teenager friendly, for their further investigation?

Do you have any suggestions on other angles we could take besides what I have talked about here?

What are your opinions, thoughts, likes, dislikes, around this issue.

The more info and ideas the better, I want as much input as I possibly can get.

Thanks heaps

(oh and also, pray for this ministry, that God would lead it and take it where He wants it to go)

Saskia

[Damian]

Saskia,

I have actually done pretty much what you're planning on doing in high school and college settings.  I taught high school back in the late 90’s (admittedly it was a catholic school so I was free to discuss the Christian faith – at least  what we would call Theology proper) and have been invited by the local public high school to do exactly what you are proposing.  Most of the kids in our church attend the local public HS and some of them were annoyed at the things they were being taught in science classes (i.e. the universe brought itself into existence, pure materialism, etc).  So they managed to get me invited to come in and discuss these issues.  The teacher of the class was more than willing, respectful, and gracious.  He’s had me back 3 years in a row.

 

I have a similar experience at the college I work at.  You may be aware that Byzantine art cannot be understood apart from the Christological controversies of the 5^th through 10^th centuries.  The teacher of one popular class on the subject is a Russian orthodox Christian and well versed in the controversies but has invited me to lecture on the specifics since my training is in theology and hers is in art.

 

Long story short; what I have found is that, generally speaking, we are always better off challenging teens and early 20-something intellectually.  The media attempts to portray the millennial generation as passive dolts who need to be spoon feed simple ideas, who’s brains don’t properly function unless they have multiple electronic stimuli, they can’t learn anything unless it’s related to Facebook or some stupid I-phone app.  We need to teach on Tumblr!  But oh, I dare disagree with the omnipotent dogma of the cultural commentators at NEA, Newsweek, and Apple (bastions of intellect that they are!)  I have found that young people actually like discussing philosophy, existence, the theological.  They get into it.  Why?  Well, probably because an adult is actually treating them as if they’re smart, as if they can handle this type of dialog.  Also, teens are, whether they admit it or not, starting to deal with the thought that they are mortal, that they will someday die, they are starting to see their identity as distinct and the questions of existence naturally press on them.

I have an outline for 5, 2 hour blocks of teaching time that, if you are interested, I can post here for your consideration.  Science (empiricism) is dealt with in class 4 after certain philosophical considerations have been laid.  Let me know if you're interested.

Damian

 

 

[Damian]

My response is what Char calls "pimpin'" ;-)

[Bit Brush]

The problem many teens face is that nothing has ever really been explained before. The "God said it so I believe it and that's final" stance from many Christian parents and SS teachers is damaging. The students then get plugged into a secular science curriculum lead by an atheist and before you know it, they have walked away from the faith.

I once heard of a christian who taught in a high school who had to teach her kids evolution. Creation was not to be discussed. Perplexed, she went to a friend who suggested that she cover more than the normal topics of evolution. The suggestion was to cover as much of it as she could because there are some serious problems with evolution that did became apparent to the students and at the end none believed in evolution and yet creation was not discussed. I believe that approach can be taken with many subjects because the weaknesses can be uncovered.

I have been discussing with Daniel about how geologists date fossils by rock layer...and those same people will date the rock layer by the fossils. It is apparent that this can cause a problem, especially if one asks the simple question, could these fossil remains have been deposited in a different era, especially if the fossil remains are similar to today's living creatures. Sometimes common sense questions can destroy a pet theory or a larger look at a specific thing like how the Grand Canyon was formed. How could Giraffes evolve given specifics of their design? Anytime one can identify assumptions in a science text book, explore where those assumptions come from and then looking at the material in that new light will go a long way to challenging kids, intellectually, when using even the most liberal of textbooks.

I am not a teacher, but we do homeschool. There are some very good text books we have used in he past. I'll have to dig up some of them. We are on our third highschool student and need to dig them out anyway.

[Daniel]

Bit Brush said:

I have been discussing with Daniel about how geologists date fossils by rock layer...and those same people will date the rock layer by the fossils. It is apparent that this can cause a problem...

Straw men about how dating is done is NOT a problem.  But straw men *can* successfully be used to cast doubt in something.  So, if I were you Saskia, I'd avoid trying to spin things to get a desired conclusion.  I'd stick with things like the history of science and how beliefs about what the Bible is said to support have changed over time as we've learned more about the world around us and how the beliefs of science are actually tested and it is these tests that produce a more solid theory or abandonment of a theory in favor of a new one.  And I'd show how this method of testing and holding to the good is actually a Biblical concept and how a lot of the early scientists and even many in those fields today are believers that believe that by studying God's Works, we can better understand both Him and His Word.  I'd also discuss it from the perspective of the views that science and faith are in conflict, in agreement, or deal with totally different topics.  Hope that helps.  

[Bit Brush]

The straw man of circular reasoning. "Thus the dating of rocks by fossils and vice versa involves circular reasoning that the theory of evolution is true." WDR

Daniel said:

Straw men about how dating is done is NOT a problem.  But straw men *can* successfully be used to cast doubt in something.  So, if I were you Saskia, I'd avoid trying to spin things to get a desired conclusion.  I'd stick with things like the history of science and how beliefs about what the Bible is said to support have changed over time as we've learned more about the world around us and how the beliefs of science are actually tested and it is these tests that produce a more solid theory or abandonment of a theory in favor of a new one.  And I'd show how this method of testing and holding to the good is actually a Biblical concept and how a lot of the early scientists and even many in those fields today are believers that believe that by studying God's Works, we can better understand both Him and His Word.  I'd also discuss it from the perspective of the views that science and faith are in conflict, in agreement, or deal with totally different topics.  Hope that helps.  

[Saskia Scott]

Hi Damian,

I would love you to upload those lessons, that would be absolutely fantastic. Thanks for the feedback and help.

 

Also just a reminder for everyone - as I said in the original post, this is not meant to be a workshop discussing the debate regarding the age of the earth and evolution. As such please refrain from discussing or debating them here. Thanks very much!

Saskia

[Damian]

Saskia,

Here it is.  Hopefully the formating will be maintained.  It's in outline form.  

I should also mention that I'm using a modified version of the Cosmological Argument.  It could be called the Onto/Cosm Argument ;-)  I have objections to empiricism on which the standard version of the Cosmological argument is based and therefore open to viable criticism.  Obviously the standard argument is working from the universe to a "first cause".  The limitations of such a model would be that proofs drawn from material reality remain material and that stands as a viable criticism. But, as Duns Scotus demonstrates, we can work from the necessary to the contingent.  The possibility of that whose being is causable does not necessarily bring with it its actual existence, but that which excludes all causes, either extrinsic or intrinsic, with regards to its own being, cannot not exist – if primary being is possible, it exists.  This is not a “physical’ argument but it is not a purely logical argument either.  It deals with the intrinsic properties of the very nature of being as being.

Class 1, Hour 1:

A.)   The Law of Non-Contradiction

1.)   Validity of the law at all times

2.)   Necessity of the law for any meaningful communication

3.)   All violations of the law are irrational by definition

4.)   Examples –

a.)    “The universe brought itself into existence”

b.)   “If everything must have a cause, what caused God?”  (We leave this open until the next hour when we discuss causality.)

Class 1, Hour 2:

A.) The Law of Causality

1.)   This is a mental extension of the law of non-contradiction

2.)   It is “innate” to human thought – use example of a two-year-old who asks “why” to everything, and speak of the parents response of “because”

3.)   Examples of violations

a.)    Bertrand Russell’s objection (see A. 4a. above)

i.)    Incorrect definition of the law of causality

ii.)   Flawed assumptions

iii.)  An “uncaused effect” is irrational by definition

iv.)  Nothing irrational about an uncaused cause

b.)   If we start from the contingent, can we only see contingent?

B.)   Necessary Being vs. Contingent Being

1.)   Necessary being is non-dependent, eternal, immutable

2.)   Contingent being is dependent, derived, and mutable

 

Class 2, Hour 1: (Back-track.  Fill in gaps using a simplified version of St. Augustine’s arguments in Contra Academicos)

A.)   Demonstrate the existence of the self against extreme skeptics

1.)   “If I am wrong, I exist”

2.)   If I prove my existence I simultaneously prove that:

a.)   I live

b.)   I exists

c.)   I have knowledge

d.)  This is true

B.)   Those who say there is no truth are defeated by their own statement since they claim access to at least one truth, namely that there is no truth.

C.)   A truth is always a necessary, immutable, and eternal proposition

1.)   Examples

a.)                2+2=4  This is always true.  It doesn’t “evolve” to truth.

b.)                “Good” is superior to “evil.”

Class 2, Hour 2:

A.) To say something is eternal, immutable, and necessary is, in essence, to say “God.”  All truths “exists” in the mind of God.

B.) The eternal, immutable, and necessary is “above” the temporal.

1.)   But we are dependent, mutable, and derived so how do we know anything that isn’t? 

2.)   God illuminates and allows us access to what would otherwise be unknown.

C.) Summary – I doubt, I know that I doubt.  Thus I know at least one truth for certain, for I cannot doubt that I doubt.  If I am certain of this, am I not so because there is a first truth which illumines every man coming into the world? If I doubt, I exist; if it is true that I doubt, God exists – the certainty of the mind’s existence implies the certainty of God’s existence. 

 

Class 3, Hour 1:

A.)   The Authority of Sacred Scripture and the deity of Christ 

B.)   We begin by assuming a fallible biblical text but that is by all historical standards, basically reliable. 

1.)   Refer students to works like: New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? F.F. Bruce; or The Resurrection of the Son of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God, N.T. Wright (one of the few books I would actually recommend by the good bishop, however!)

a.)    We would not spend much time here as this would take up too much time.

Class 3, Hour 2:

A.)   Discuss miracles. What is a true miracle, what is false?

1.) The basically reliable bible records that Christ performed miracles.

2.) By itself, the fact that Christ does miracles is not immediate proof that He is God.

3.) All we would know immediately by Christ or anyone else doing miracles would not be that that person is God but that that person has the power of God.

4.) Receiving this power of God, He has received credentials from God which authenticate him as a messenger of God and, therefore, to be believed in whatever He says.

5.) The only person who had that power and who actually claimed deity (John 14:9, John 10:30) was, of course, Christ. He was thereby proven to be what He claimed to be, that is, God.

6.) Christ claimed the infallibility of scripture – refer to B.) above. 

 

Class 4, Hour 1:

A.)   Recap of what we have demonstrated thus far:

1.)   We exist

2.)   God exists

3.)   The deity of Christ

4.)   The infallibility of Sacred Scripture

B.)   Discussion of world views

1.)   Mention and define various worldviews. 

a.)    Materialism

b.)   Existentialism

c.)    Atheism

d.)   Pantheism

e.)    Nihilism

 

Class 4, Hour 2:

A.) All these world-views basically boil down to Empiricism

2.)   Show Raphael’s “School of Athens” and have students discuss the figures of Plato and Aristotle and their respective poses

a.)    Plato represents idealism and metaphysics – He points upwards.

b.)   Aristotle represents  empiricism and sense perception – He points outwards (horizontally).

3.)   Discuss the limitations of the empirical method

a.)    The limitations of sense perception

b.)   The inability to transcend to the metaphysical

c.)    Offer specific examples

i.)     Inability to explain language

ii.)    No viable theory of knowledge

iii.)   No way to explain self-consciousness

4.)   Here we discuss how the modern worldview is essentially empiricism gone haywire. 

5.)   Better instruments that allow the senses to “see” or “hear” to a greater degree does not bring us any closer to answering questions of being and becoming, metaphysical realities, etc.

6.)   The outcome of pure empiricism is a materialistic, nihilism.

7.)   The only question left of the consistent atheist is the legitimacy of suicide.

 

Class 5, Hour 1:

A.)   Discuss common objections

1.)   The problem of evil – If God is good why does He allow evil?

a.)    Challenge the premise of the question – How do you know what “good” is?  In a purely materialistic system there is no basis for “good” or “bad.”

2.)   The Church has done so many horrible things over the centuries

a.)    No defense, I agree, the church has done many terrible things over the centuries.

b.)   It can be shown however that those carrying out evil deeds in the name of Christ were not acting in a Christian manner when they did.

3.)   What about other religions?  Don’t they all lead to God?  Like a mountain with many paths? – No, Christianity is particular

a.)    A particular God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit)

b.)   A particular mediator

c.)    A particular sacrifice

d.)   Coming through a particular people (Israel)

e.)    With a particular text

f.)     A particular method – Faith alone, by grace alone, through Christ alone

g.)    A particular way to pray (Our Father, who art in Heaven…)

h.)   Also, this would lead to confusion.  If there are ten methods to God, but we have come up with twenty, how can we be sure which ones have the approval of God on them?

Class 5, Hour 2:

A.)   Now that we have demonstrated the existence of “good” we can move to the law of God.

1.)   Ten Commandments

2.)   Christ’s summary of the law – Love the Lord with your whole heart, soul, mind, strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.

a.)    Go to the Sermon on the Mount and discuss Christ’s amplification of the law

b.)   How do we stand before a holy God?

B.)   Christianity is the only way to deal with our sin.  It is the only way to restore right relations with an alienated, just, holy, creator God.

C.)    The Christian world view is the only one that gives hope and explains existence in any logical way

[Daniel]

Bit Brush said:

The straw man of circular reasoning. "Thus the dating of rocks by fossils and vice versa involves circular reasoning that the theory of evolution is true." WDR

Start a new topic on that.  I'd love a chance to set the record straight. :)

[Daniel]

Saskia Scott said:

Also just a reminder for everyone - as I said in the original post, this is not meant to be a workshop discussing the debate regarding the age of the earth and evolution. As such please refrain from discussing or debating them here. Thanks very much!

I agree.  That is why I suggested a new topic.  :)  But, to be honest, I've been asked to do these "science and the Bible" kind of presentations in the past as well.  But when I got into the details of what they really wanted covered, it was largely YEC/OEC in practice.  So, while I started out with the generalities of what I mentioned before, most of the time and most of the questions came about the YEC/OEC debate.  I had to be very careful though.  There presentation was at a church for a community homeschool group.  Both the church and the parents of the kids had prior opinions on it.  So I had to be very irenic in my coverage of the debate without expressing any personal opinion or trying to point to a particular conclusion by only presenting the best support for that.  All told, it was 7 hours of lecture and, at the end, the parents couldn't tell if I was OEC or YEC because I had presented the best evidence for both.

And that is why I was mentioning not spinning the presentation one way or the other.  I'm a firm believer in the sanctity of the parent/child relationship and made it real clear to the kids that if they had questions about which was true, they needs to talk to their parents.  The last thing you want to do is to teach someone else's kids that their parents are wrong.  And if you are dealing with high school teenagers who already have that opinion, validating it isn't a good idea. LOL  So I generally didn't present conclusions at all about modern controversies, but what each side of the debate believes and why.  

[Bit Brush]

That just might be worth the price of admission.

Daniel said:

Bit Brush said:

The straw man of circular reasoning. "Thus the dating of rocks by fossils and vice versa involves circular reasoning that the theory of evolution is true." WDR

Start a new topic on that.  I'd love a chance to set the record straight. :)

[Damian]

I wanted to clarify (mostly for myself!) what I was getting at in terms of a modification of the Cosmological Argument where I added the prefix "Onto" to it.  It is important to notice at the outset that in this method of proof of God's existence we proceed entirely on the level of essence rather than on the plane of existence.  We do not begin by affirming existences and then proceed to find their first efficient cause.  On the contrary, we should first observe certain "ways of being" and the final explanation of this is sought in a being whose ontological priority is their only possible justification - God.

Whether it is a question of the world of individual things, or life of the mind in search of truth, the basic fact to be explained remains the same.  In both cases the theologian is confronted by what Gilson calls the "ontological scandal of change."   Therefore, "proofs" should thinks less about existence than about being.  Change is not truly to be... the contingency we should  try to explain is not so much the contingency of existence as the contingency of beings which, even thought they are not nothing, still do not have sufficient reason within themselves for being what they are.  

Okay, I think I just confused myself so... there ya go! :-)

[Saskia Scott]

Hey Damian,

Thanks so much for all of that, it is super helpful.

A couple of questions about the bits I particularly want to steal :P

1. Can you expand on the statement that the law of causality is an extension of the law of non-contradiction?

2. In class 2, hour 1 you talk about truth and in the final point you say that "good" is superior to "evil." I think I understand this idea - that everyone has the idea that good things are superior - this is an eternal truth. Can you clarify it a bit more for me. Also, can you give me an example of how you might explain this in the workshop?

3. In class 4, hour 2 - can you explain what you mean by "the inability to transcend to the metaphysical"?

4. The next point under that in the same class and hour - the specific examples - I'm not sure I'm on board with any of those. Can you flesh them out a bit?

Thanks so much for your help! Don't feel stressed about getting back to me quickly, I'm not on a tight timeline. Also I completely understand if you don't feel like answering Qs about it at all, just let me know.

Saskia