Customer Reviews

Christianity and the Nature of Science: A Philosophical Investigation

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

First, I'd like to encourage everyone who might be persuaded by the arguments of the disparaging reviewers to read the book, as Moreland answers arguments like the ones they raise quite well. I'd also encourage everyone to read and be fair even to arguments they find personally threatening to their worldview. The reaction of some people to questioning the authority of science are identical to the reaction of some people to the questioning of the authority of religion. And this is not a coincidence, we all react poorly when what we worship is questioned.

Finished this book a couple of weeks ago and I was very impressed. This book is an introduction to the philsophy of science but it's written as a refutation of scientism (the belief that only scientific knowledge is real knoweldge) and an apologia for creation science. However, Moreland's bias should not be taken as indicative of the depth of his treatment of his subject. He gives what seemed to my virgin ears to be a very substantial treatment of the demarcation problem, to the issue of scientific realism, and to the various alternatives to scientific realism. Despite what some might think, Moreland himself actually comes down on the side of "eclectic" scientific realism, which is the belief that some of the theories of science should be interpreted realisitcally (heliocentrism, for example) and other perhaps should not (wave/particle duality, string theory, etc.)

Moreland basically makes the case that scientism is self-defeating, that there is further no hard and fast definition of precisely what constitutes science, that scientific realism is problematic, that it is possible to account for the success of science without advocating realism, that it's an open question as to whether or not science "progresses" or whether scientific theories are replaced wholesale, that scientific theories are succesful to the extent that they embody certain epistemic values in the scientific community, that these values change over time, and that creation science, while currently viewed unfavorably in light of current epistemic values (like the exclusion of supernatural final causes) may yet be science, and may even by it's success change what the epistemic values in science in our age.

Moreland also gives a brief attempt in a final chapter at debunking some claims made against creationism. He tackles the ideas that creation science makes no predictions, creation relies on problems with evolutionary theory instead of solving problems on it's own, creationism uses religious concepts like "God" and therefore cannot be scientific, and several others. He argues that all of these objections to creation science fail, and that creation science can be appropriately considered science.

The book is out of print, so it's hard to get. It's a little involved for your average reader without some previous background in philosophy. Nevertheless, I will reccomend it to any Christian friends looking for a friendly introduction into this area and who may be scared of by books written by non-Christians. I'd also reccomend it to non-Christians for a philosophically sophisticated argument against scientism and for recognizing creationsim as a legitimate candidate for the status of science.

J.P. Moreland, Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, Biola Univsersity, does a great service to the Christian (and non-Christian) scholarly community in laying out the foundational issues in the philosophy of science and how they relate to Christian theology.

The work covers the definition, methodology, scope, and presuppositions of scientific investigation as well as a thorough examination of the "realism"/"anti-realism" debate within the philosophy of science. Lastly, Moreland gives a thorough treatment of "The Status of Scientific Creationism."

This book is intellectually rigorous. It is serves as a thorough introduction that is particularly encouraging to the Christian academic community. If you are either a student or a professor, you will come away much more educated.

The book also contains an excellent bibliography for those who are interested in further study.

Moreland is a bona-fide Christian scholar--not someone who is carelessly defending creationism. Rather, he writes from the perspective of a thoughtful philosopher.

Moreland's book is an excellent review of the issues philosophers of science (and some scientists) grapple with in evaluating the legitimacy and implications of scientific claims. Scientism, the view that science is the preeminent source of knowledge, is delineated and critiqued. Moreland gives good reason for a more critical view of naive scientific self-confidence, and he argues persuasively that theistic hypotheses can fall within the pale of science correctly understood.

Of course everyone has biases, and some foolishly think that philosophy is useless. Some think that only that which can be physically reproduced in a laboratory situation is that which is valid; in which case, all thought is irrelevant. Some people involve themselves in happy contradictions.

Moreland is outstanding in the area of pointing out difficulties with resolutions in the area of thought and rationality. This is a very interesting and educational read for those who think they can "pos[e] a hypothesis that can be physically tested" as the foundation of truth and thought.

Dr. Moreland does not wave his education in the face of the reader. He doesn't make you feel "less" because you don't have a degree. I've never taken a class by him, but he is a great instructor, even if you disagree with some of his points.

All in all this is a worthwhile book to contemplate.

Very sophisticated discussion of philosophy of science issues, especially the sections on realism and anti-realism. Many skeptics of religion simply are unaware how much of their secular, scientific worldview is based on assumptions about what is real and how we know things. Just because science can produce technology that works, such as cell phones, does that mean that what science tells us about "reality" is true? The Nova TV specials and the Discovery Channel all speak as if the "Big Bang" or "evolution" were objective scientific phenomenon, just as concrete as a test tube full of sulfuric acid. Moreland effectively and clearly explores the literature that sees these as constructs or myths depending as much on inferences and conceptual architecture as they do on any real observations.

This book is seminal to any understanding of the intelligent design movement. It is a brilliant bit of work.

hypothesis (n.) -- a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences.

Until you can pose an experimentally testable hypothesis and test it on observable phenomena, all the armchair logic in the world won't help you separate useful ideas about the physical world from non-useful ideas. This book tries to sweep away four centuries of useful application of this principle, and fails. Philosophy without physically testable hypotheses is just dinner conversation using big words. In this book, J. P. Moreland uses lots of big words to express his opinions, but that's about it. In three readings, I have yet to catch him posing a hypothesis that can be physically tested.

Fundamentalist evangelical protestant Christians are likely to enjoy reading this book. Readers who wish to understand empirical science and its limits are much less likely to find it helpful.

It is the work of a philosopher who builds his logical castle down from the sky, then tries to use it as a fulcrum to move the earth. This approach is not useful as a critique of the philosophy of science.

The knowledge that is obtained through empirical scientific research is firmer, humbler in nature, and more like a rock than that which stands upon the interpretation of sacred texts, whether those sacred texts be from Torah, Isaiah, Daniel, gospel, epistle, revelation, classical Greek philosopher, stoic Roman emperor or Manichaean convert.

Philosophy is a very useful study. But one must always be open and clear about the underpinnings of one's philosophy, and there are much better approaches than Moreland's available for understanding the successful philosophy of science. These include the works of Thomas Kuhn, Karl Popper, Ernst Meyr, Fred Wilson, and most especially Richard Feynman.

This book misrepresents empirical science in order to defend creationist ideology.