(On)bevooroordeelde benaderings tot die bevin-dings van wetenskaplike ondersoek: 'n Reaksie op die geloof-wetenskap-diskoers Translated title: (Un)biased approaches to the results of scientific research: A reaction to the faith-science discourse

Abstract

Dit klink ongehoord om sensuur op artikels te wil toepas, wanneer dié artikels op grond van natuurwetenskaplike navorsing aandui dat die bevindinge in ooreenstemming is met dit wat 'n groot deel van die wereldbevolking glo. Tog is 'n onlangse voorbeeld hiervan die reaksie op vier artikels wat in 2023 in die Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe (TGW) gepubliseer is. In hierdie artikels is die resultaat van natuurwetenskaplike en kosmologiese navorsing wat op 'n hoogs intelligente en presiese ontwerp in beide makro- en mikrokosmos dui, bespreek. Die navorsingsresultate dui daarop dat daar 'n intelligente ontwerper van die kosmos moet wees. In sy reaksie op die vier artikels, erken Spangenberg die geldigheid van die navorsings-resultate, maar hy voer aan dat dit nie met die eerste vyf boeke van die Bybel vergelyk kan word nie, aangesien laasgenoemde nie betroubaar is nie. Gegrond op sy ewolusionistiese siening van godsdiens, beweer hy dat die Pentateug as 'n bloot menslike samestelling van verskeie en teenstrydige dokumente ontstaan het. Resente Bybelwetenskaplike navorsing dui egter heelwat probleme met hierdie bronnehipotese aan, met die gevolg dat navorsers terugkeer na die siening dat die Pentateug grootliks deur een outeur saamgestel is, 'n geheel vorm en as sodanig betroubaar is. Anders as wat Spangenberg met sy verwysing na Galileo beweer, staan die Christendom nie in die pad van goeie navorsing nie. Christen-denkers het deur die eeue heen kosbare wetenskaplike werk gedoen en boonop verskeie universiteite gestig en befonds. Wetenskaplike ondersoek vereis 'n onbevooroordeelde benadering, wat die geleentheid skep dat bevindinge eerlik geïnterpreteer kan word om tot die mees waarskynlike gevolgtrekkings te lei. In 'n era waar rofweg 'n derde van die mensdom hulleself as Christene beskou (Dyvik, 2023), terwyl die persentasie mense wat ateïsties die idee van 'n goddelike wese verwerp wêreldwyd baie laag is, is dit opvallend dat voorstanders van laasgenoemde kategorie, navorsers en navorsing uit eersgenoemde groepering probeer stilmaak. 'n Resente voorbeeld hiervan is die reaksie op vier artikels wat in 2023 in die Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe (TGW) verskyn het. In hierdie artikels (Dreyer, Van der Walt & Denton, 2023; Dreyer & Van der Walt, 2023a, 2023b, 2023c) bespreek die skrywers nuwere wetenskaplike ontdekkings en hoe die ontdek-kings aanduiding van hoogs-intelligente en presiese ontwerp gee.

Translated abstract

In a time where approximately one-third of the world Spopulation identify as Christian, while the percentage of individuals rejecting the idea of a divine being remains relatively low, it is striking that proponents of the latter category attempt to silence research and findings from the former group. A recent example of this is the reaction to four articles published in 2023 in the Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe (Journal of Humanities). These articles discuss recent scientific research, indicating highly intelligent and precise design in both macrocosm and microcosm, leading researchers to logically conclude that there must be a designer who cannot be a part of the cosmos itself. This conclusion causes significant discomfort among atheistically inclined thinkers, as evidenced by the fierce response to these articles. It appears that there is even pressure on academic journals to employ censorship and refrain from publishing such research. This article is a reaction to such criticism. Spangenberg (2023) takes issue with the assumption of the researchers of the four articles that humans are rational beings, by emphasising the irrationality of certain human behaviour. He has a significant problem with the researchers' suggestion that the order found in nature and humans' rational thinking abilities cannot be seen as coincidental but are ordained by God. He also attempts to create a contradiction between a merciful God and a God who punishes sin. But all these arguments can be dismissed based on basic logic. Spangenberg accuses the authors of misinformation when discussing Genesis. Referring to Genesis 1:26, he asserts that when God says, "let us make man," it implies multiple gods. Spangenberg's idea of polytheism in Genesis is further emphasised by his reference to the garden in Genesis 2 as the garden of gods, because it was located in the east. According to him, that would have referred to the place where heaven and earth meet, allowing gods residing in heaven to enter the earth. This conclusion based on the garden's eastern location resembles a slippery slope form of reasoning. Even when considering only the Pentateuch, the introduction of the so-called assembly of gods and garden of gods in Genesis 1 and 2 by Spangenberg cannot be considered a plausible interpretation. The focus in the Pentateuch, as in the rest of the Bible, is on the fact that God must be known and acknowledged as the only God, contrary to the pagan nations' concept of multiple gods. Spangenberg based his ideas on the documentary hypothesis - a theory that claims that the first five books of the Bible emerged over a long period of time and that they are a compilation of various and contradictory documents. He uses this to discredit the research in the four articles, despite the fact that even supporters of the documentary hypothesis admit to problems in this hypothesis. Contemporary research suggests that it is crucial to consider the truth claims of the Pentateuch itself and move away from hypothetical source documents. Arguments by people such as Spangenberg, that authors who do not accept this document hypothesis or give reference to it should be censured, cannot bear any weight. In fact, recent research returns to the idea that the Pentateuch is a single work, written according to a plan and largely composed by one author. By accepting its unity and inspiration, as millions of Christians do, valuable insights can be gained, for instance by considering why specific names for God are used in particular contexts. Conversely, viewing it as merely different sources does not yield fruitful research. In a further attempt to discredit the four scientific articles in the TGW, Spangenberg points to the negative way in which the church had supposedly dealt with Galileo Galilei's heliocentric research some centuries ago. Contrary to Spangenberg's assertion, the reality is that Galileo's affair did not start as a conflict between science and the church. The church had initially encouraged Galileo to continue his work. It was particularly natural scientists who, partly justifiable and partly not, raised issues concerning the results of his research. As evidenced by the authors of the four articles mentioned above, it was especially Christian thinkers who had developed scientific knowledge throughout many centuries; moreover, they had established and funded several universities where research could be done. Upon examining the four articles opposed by Spangenberg and others, it becomes clear how crucial it is that science and its results should not be suppressed. The articles discuss research in natural sciences and cosmology that delves into the cause and fine-tuning of the universe, as well as the precision of cosmic constants that make life possible. Additionally, they explore the origins of encoded information within DNA, and its role in life itself. It is unacceptable to reject experimental observations and derived theories based on a negative view of Christian beliefs beforehand. Scientific inquiry necessitates an unbiased and open-minded approach, demonstrating the courage to interpret data honestly, in order to reach the most probable conclusion.