2-tier and science excluding God from the discussion
The 2-tier dichotomy continues today in large part because science places the discussion of God and religion outside the boundaries of discussion—it is removed from realistic consideration. In an article titled, “Knowledge, Truth, and Social Reality: An Introductory Note on Qualitative Research,” published in the Indian Journal for Community Medicine, N. Nakkeeran expresses the disqualification of social sciences as an avenue for seeking objective truth (italics added).
Science refers to a particular form of knowledge, which could be relied on to gain a more dependable, correct, or true understanding of the world, and how the world works. It also refers to a search for knowledge using a set of systematic principles such as objectivity and measurability which are universally accepted. It is distinct from an outlook based on religion, faith, or belief.
Having said this, we have to understand the fact that there are a number of academic disciplines ranging from mathematics and physics to psychology and sociology all grouped as sciences. They can be arranged in a hierarchy in terms of degree of objectivity, certainty, and universality of their explanations. Theories in sciences such as mathematics and physics can claim to a very high degree of certainty, objectivity, and universality as they are to great extent independent of human experience. To a significant level, the same might be true for explanations in disciplines of anatomy and physiology. However, when we come to social science disciplines such as sociology, anthropology, or psychology, their explanations cannot and do not claim for higher degree of objectivity, certainty, or universality. All sciences aspire to understand reality and/or attempt to explain how the world works. Although this can be common for all the disciplines, social sciences differ enormously from natural sciences in terms of the way they look at reality, part of the reality they choose to study, and the kind of problems they choose to address. (taken from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2963873/ October 9, 29021).
Nakkeeran’s comments are spot on. Science itself has disqualified any other truth claims from being included in the discussion. But the matter is not that simple.
What may startle some people is the fact that this 2-tiered perspective on truth may be more of a conscious attack on religion itself, particularly the Christian faith. Again we turn to Pearcey who provides insight into the tactics of scientific truth contrasted with religious truth.
Pearcey documents an interview conducted by the New York Review of Books with Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin (Pearcey, Total Truth, p. 170). In the interview Lewontin made admissions that explain the biased nature of the scientific community and raises some questions concerning the motives of the scientific community’s objectives.
Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin gave the game away in a highly revealing article in the New York Review of Books a few years ago. Lewontin starts out by admitting the darker side of science (it makes extravagant claims, causes environmental problems, and so on). And yet, he quickly adds, we must still prefer science to any form of supernaturalism. Why? Because, “we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” This is a stunning admission that what drives the show in not the facts but the philosophy. “It’s not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation” of the world, Lewontin explains, “on the contrary,” he says, “we are forced by our priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations.” Translation: We first accepted materialism as a philosophy, and then refashioned science into a machine for cranking out strictly materialistic theories. Finally, he warns that this materialism must be “absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.” Why does Lewontin urge us to define science as applied materialism? If a “divine foot” ever got in the door of science, that would provide the groundwork for the entire Christian worldview, with its theology and biblical morality.
But not only do scientists admit that they are biased against religion and a creationist view of reality, but their bias drives them in their work. Take for example the two men who discovered the human DNA. Nancy Pearcey explains the story (p. 171).
The famous duo who discovered the double-helix structure of DNA, Francis Crick and James Watson, freely admit that anti-religious motivations drove their scientific work. “I went into science because of these reasons, there’s no doubt about that,” Crick said in an interview. “I asked myself what were the two things that appear inexplicable an are used to support religious beliefs.” He decided the two things that support religion were “the difference between living and nonliving things, and the phenomenon of consciousness.” He then aimed his own research specifically at demonstrating a naturalistic view of both.
Such scientists are not shy about their views. Pearcey lists yet another scientist who explains his view on religion.
Steven Weinberg was even more aggressively anti-religious when addressing the aptly named Freedom From Religion Foundation. “I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive to religious belief, and I’m all for that!” He said. The hope that science would liberate people from religion, he went on, is “one of the things that in fact has driven me in my life.” If science helps bring about the end of religion, he concluded, “it would be the most important contribution science could make.” Clearly, the motives driving many evolutionists have as much to do with religion as with science. (Pearcey, Total Truth, p. 171).
The biased position of many scientists, philosophers, and the like, causes them to solidify the upper and lower tiers in order to shut out the discussion of reality with religious input. By doing so they perpetuate and increase the perspective of the 2-tiered view.
Allow just one more example of this biased science perspective. I hesitate to provide it due to the fact I can no longer cite the author and source of the information. Nevertheless, it is a fine example of the science field’s biased perspective.
A number of years ago I became interested in the James Webb telescope and began to read about the NASA project. I found the information exciting as I find research on the cosmos interesting. I came across an article that provided the text of an interview with one of the astrophysicists and leading scientists involved in the program. He was being interviewed due to the importance of his position within the project. Again, I do not recall his name nor the position he held at NASA nor within the telescope project. What I do recall verbatim was one of the scientist's quotes that reflected one of the expected goals of the project. I will put his statement in quotations, but again, I cannot cite the source except by memory. The scientist said, “The James-Webb telescope will allow us to prove that humanity is a bacteria and not a miracle.” I realized immediately what the scientist was saying—the telescope will prove by its ability to see deeply into the past universe, that mankind was produced by the working of naturalism and evolutionary processes rather than as a creation of God as the Bible claims. Once again, the biased perspective of the scientific community drives them to disregard any discussion of a creator. Yet again, one of the methods to accomplish this is through the 2-tier perspective which is reinforced throughout our society and the education system.
Robert Jastrow, a self-professing agnostic, wrote a well-known sentence that fully explains the plight of scientists as they attempt to find scientific truth but are hindered by their biases.
For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.
Stay with me as we move on to discuss the implications that come along with the 2-tier perspective.To next section Homepage