Debbs McKown wrote an essay in 1984 which was later published in F. D. White & S. J. Billings (Eds.),
The Well-crafted Argument: A Guide and a Reader (pp.
587-591). New York: Houghton Mifflin. Professor of philosophy McKown’s
main purpose is to warn about a future constitutional conflict between
science and religion. As professor of philosophy, he marshals his
philosophical training to try proving his premise. Since the Founding
Fathers designed an
“utterly secular Constitution,” (p. 586) he
asserts they did not provide enough safeguard for the free practice and
advance of science. Furthermore, because science opposes Christianity’s
religious myths, there is peril that technology “would, one day… be
endangered by it” (p. 586). The author goes on to describe religion’s
threat to science and chastises
Stephen Jay Gould for believing that
“science and religion, properly understood, do not conflict” (p. 587). Especially since American fundamentalism’s
“blood is boiling at present” (p. 587). McKown also asserts that
“creationism threatens biology” (p. 587) and that all major sciences would
“be gutted,” “emasculated,” and “suffer substantially,” (p. 587) at the hands of creationists. The author goes on to assert that
“Christianity is scientifically unsupported” (p.588).
The author insists that speaking about God is philosophically
pointless, and the claim to religious experience as validation for
religion can render contradictory results that cannot be verified.
McKown
then accuses Christianity of historical fraud, asserting that the
Gospel stories are suspect because they were written to convince people
to believe in Christ. He points to alleged Christian misuse of the
Jewish Old Testament to prove Jesus as Messiah, and the
“suspiciously different resurrection tales” (p. 589). He surprisingly concludes that the Christ of the New Testament
“never had any existence” (p. 589).
McKown
claims that if schools were to teach modern science then a wholesale
adoption of rational empiricism would be necessary. McKown proposes a 7
step plan of action that includes
“the possible use of professional sanctions, to help safeguard the integrity of science instruction in public schools” (p. 590). He also proposes education that would help wean Americans from religion.
After
reviewing the article, we concluded that McKown has not effectively
proved his claim. His stated title seems to require a more thorough
treatment of the Constitution as it relates to the relationship of
religion, science and education. One expects to see some treatment of
current proposed amendments that may in the future bear on the author’s
subject, but none are given. McKown’s claim that the Constitution is
“utterly secular” (p. 586) may be contradicted by religious people, but he offers no evidence for his claim.
A surprising claim is the one that asserts that the
“useful arts” in the form of
“technology”
are endangered by religious people (p. 586). This sounds like an
unfounded exaggeration, especially considering the churches’ use of
technology to disseminate their beliefs. This should have been clarified
by the author. McKown sees American fundamentalism as a threat to
science (p. 587), but does not define the term. This would have been
useful; especially considering the range of meanings that
“fundamentalism” has had since its inception into American religious
life. He also asserts that creationism is an enemy to all sciences, but
fails to comment on the fact that a great amount of modern science
discoveries were pioneered by Bible believing scientists. No specific
examples are given to show that his assertions are true. I found this
trend one of the greatest weaknesses in McKown’s paper. Also, because
the range of beliefs in American Christianity is so vast, defining the
group that he is addressing would have helped to make his paper
intelligible to a general audience.
McKown claims that
real religion involves “scriptural literalism,” and because the
scriptures are mistaken regarding the nature of the universe, the earth,
life and other subjects, then a conflict with science is inevitable.
Although by the end of the paper it is obvious that Christianity is the
object of his attack, he nowhere declares so. He uses the term
“religion” but seems to define it (in his own mind) quite narrowly. This
makes the above claim about “scriptural literalism” meaningless, and
even wrong, apart from a Christian (fundamentalist?) understanding,
especially because many religions in America do not have holy scriptures
in the manner Christianity has, and some religions that do actually do
not interpret them literally (i.e. those of the Gnostic persuasion and
others).
The author’s claim that
“Christianity is scientifically unsupported”
(p. 588) needed a lot more detail. Declaring in what way it is
unsupported; explain what scientific, repeatable experiment had proven
it to be so would have been helpful. Some of the gaps in his arguments
are quite surprising given the fact that the author is a professor of
philosophy. It seems to me that most Christians probably do not have
anything against science per se but McKown’s entire paper seems to
depend on that supposed fact. The author nowhere defines what he
understands as “science,” and this, again, weakens his position. McKown
quotes
Ralph Alpher approvingly when he states that if there is a god
“it will become evident to the scientist” (p.
588). But it seems that if God is defined as the all-powerful,
all-knowing Designer and Creator of the universe, His knowledge would be
so far above mankind’s that it would be easier for a “scientist ant”
(if there was such a thing) to understand man’s science than for a human
scientist to understand God’s. McKown contends that
Freud had it right when he wrote that
“biological
research robbed man of his particular privilege of having been
specially created, and relegated him to a descent from the animal
world.” (p. 588) The author does not interact at all with modern scientific models like
Intelligent Design
and does not seem to be aware that unproven traditional evolutionism (a
la Darwin) has been mostly rejected in favor of other theories like
punctuated equilibrium. The author’s dogmatism does not take into
account that evolution, far from being a law, is still a “theory” of
origins.
The most powerful arguments were expected to
be under the heading of “No Support from Philosophy,” but none are
given. He asserts that
“nowadays, philosophy is not a welcome place to land,”
but does not provide a logical argument why that is so. He does not
interact with the theories of current Christian philosophical scholars.
Interestingly, one of the most publicized debates between atheist and
Christian philosophers have rendered results that seem to contradict the
author’s position. Prolific British atheist writer
Antony Flew and Christian philosopher/historian
Gary Habermas
debated the subject of the historical fact of the resurrection of
Christ and the scholars present, atheists among them, concluded that
Habermas won the debate. Some years later Flew abandoned his atheism
when the evidence of intelligent design pointed him to the existence of
God.
When it comes to historical evidence, the author
asserts that Christianity has massively misused the Jewish Old
Testament, but again no proof is given. Christians could point out to
Isaiah 53 which describes the life and death of Jesus in astonishing
detail, even though it was written hundreds of years before he was born.
McKown calls the resurrection a “tale” and incredibly decides that
Jesus
“never had existence” (p. 589), a point of view that had
been quite popular in the eighteenth century but finds no modern
support. Jewish historian Josephus wrote about Christ in the first
century, and Roman historian Tacitus recognizes the existence of the
followers of Christ around the same time. Furthermore, it would be
interesting to find out what McKown would do to explain the empty tomb
and the origin of the Christian church apart from Jesus’ real existence
and resurrection. To assert that the Apostles invented Him would not
explain their willingness to die as martyrs for their beliefs.
The author hopes for constitutional guarantees for scientific inquiry
“equivalent to those enjoyed by religion” (p. 590) and shares his seven step plan to obtain better science education in American schools. One of them suggests
“the
possible use of professional sanctions, to help safeguard the integrity
of science instruction in public schools and to shield science teachers
against uninformed [Christian?] Public opinion” (p. 590). It seems
to me that if enforced in the way the author envisions this, especially
considering he would like some kind of constitutional amendment to
guarantee similar results, it would cut off any and all divergent points
of view. It would birth a totalitarian system where dissenters could
end up losing their professional status and the opportunity to work for
public schools unless willing to conform to the current “scientific”
regime. Public (paternal?) opinion would not matter and children could
be indoctrinated without any opposition. It seems to me that giving that
much power to either side (religious or atheistic) would be a grave
mistake. Openness to different points of view in the market place of
ideas is a better way to guarantee a better science education.
The author ends his paper appealing to
“a new and unique source of truth” that can be used to revise
“ethical premises” (p.
591), but he does not clarify how and in what way could science, the
science of empirical experimentation, provide a basis for an ethical
system, when, by definition, ethical systems are not quantifiable in a
laboratory. Is he suggesting that a test tube could be the foundation of
morality?
Throughout his writing McKown assumes what
he wants to (and should) prove. In the end, one is left wondering if the
author did not provide evidence for his many assertions because his
goal was to make an emotional appeal only, without a scientific basis,
or perhaps because he is not informed enough to do so, or whether
evidence for his point of view simply does not exist. In the end, his
essay is not worthy to be included in an anthology such as
The Well-crafted Argument, because there is a patent lack of any such argument in his biased writing.
G. Jorge Medina
Defenders of the Faith
www.defendersweb.com
...
