The Ethics of Integrating Faith and Science
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a fine paper, well thought-out and argued: its easy style is an advantage!
My only comments are primarily directed toward formatting:
Lines 157–58, indent (part of block quotation)
Line 171 “old” —> “ago”?
footnote 14 uniform font size; plus check title of Giberson book
Lines 284–87 fix font size
Lines 289–94 indent as block quotation
Thanks for the opportunity!
Author Response
This is a fine paper, well thought-out and argued: its easy style is an advantage!
Thank you!
My only comments are primarily directed toward formatting:
Lines 157–58, indent (part of block quotation) fixed
Line 171 “old” —> “ago”? fixed
footnote 14 uniform font size; plus check title of Giberson book: both fixed
Lines 284–87 fix font size: fixed
Lines 289–94 indent as block quotation: fixed
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper explores an interesting aspect of the interaction of faith and science, but needs some cleaning up and additional structure. The paper explores the role of ethics in the interaction of faith and science; however, this is not clearly spelled out. The broad topic of ethics is identified early on, but there is a lack of a specific explanation of what aspect of ethics. After reading the entire paper, I am still not completely clear. The paper also misses the opportunity to address the currently pressing topic of the ethics of artificial intelligence. The paper finishes with an apologetics exhortation, not seemingly connected to ethics. Here are specific comments on the paper:
==================
Lines 8; 17-18: Perhaps restate as: “any model of the interaction between science and faith”. As it stands, it is unclear what is being modeled.
Lines 4-8; 17-18: Two claims are made, and it is unclear whether the paper will argue they are true, whether the paper takes their veracity as a starting point for purposes of discussion, or whether you assert their veracity to be self-evident and in no need of justification. One claim is that viewing faith and science as respective institutions is required in order to appreciate their ethical components. It isn’t clear whether this ethical component refers to the interaction between faith and science, or to the two respective things, independently, or something else. But in any case, it is not immediately obvious that an appreciation of the ethical component is not possible from the first two views (methodology and body of knowledge). The second claim is that the ethical component must be included in any model of science and faith in the 21st century. Why is this true? Was it not true in previous centuries? Again, is this a bare assertion or starting point for the paper, or will the paper argue this?
Line 40: I am now noticing a pattern that sentences are occasionally italicized, for no apparent reason. I assume it is for emphasis, but it seems overdone.
Line 40: Faith is equated with “body of knowledge.” But earlier, faith was defined as having three definitions, one of which was a body of knowledge. So are you here employing that one, of the three definitions? Further, this body of knowledge is equated with the Apostle’s Creed. While there is knowledge expressed in that creed, is there not much more to the body of knowledge? Or are you wanting to limit that body of knowledge here for the paper’s purposes? It seems that later in the paragraph you equate it with Lewis’s “mere Christianity,” although there is no citation, or definition given, for what this actually means.
Lines 39-49: This paragraph seems to be rambling, and not clear that the personal biographical information relevant. Also, it is here that the “faith” of which the paper addresses is specifically some form of Christianity. You may want to make this clear earlier.
Lines 39-53: So these two paragraphs appear to refer to the first two definitions of faith, of the three given earlier in the paper, and yet inexplicably, the order is reversed, adding confusion to readers attempting to sort out what the paper is saying.
Line 62: It appears that the body of knowledge referred to earlier has now been replaced with beliefs.
Lines 81-82: Without an example or two, it is impossible for the reader to know to what you are referring, and this simply comes off as an anti-science, partisan, shot without justification.
Line 106: Majority? That claim is not supported by Footnote 6.
Line 107: Define STEM?
Line 108: What is “the other side of the theological aisle”?
Lines 148, 162, 174, 332: Split infinitive.
Line 149: “most”? This is a non-obvious, yet unsupported claim.
Lines 172-173: “almost universally”? This seems to contradict Lines 110-113. The paper seems to have internal contradictions.
Line 190: Missing a period.
Line 212: Not clear to what this refers. One or more examples might help.
Line 217: Why the exclamation mark? I would delete.
Line 244: This is a substantial claim that is not only unsupported, but not clearly explained. Needs more detail if the paper is going to include this.
Lines 254-256: Double check this. Are you sure about this? As I understand it, the problem was disruption of certain radar altimeter equipment, which the FCC had not fully appreciated or understood.
Line 263: This is an on-going problem, and has more to do with journalism than science. Need to avoid holding science accountable for the headlines created by editors.
Line 306: I didn’t know that.
Line 336: How is this relevant?
Minor edits required
Author Response
Thank you for your thorough and thoughtful review. You are correct about the essay not addressing the ethics of AI. The paper is based on an address I gave a year ago, and lot has happened (ie., ChatGPT, etc.) since then. You are also correct that the paper does not presenting an ethical model, but rather presents examples of significant areas of interaction. The abstract is edited to make this clearer. “This brief essay sketches out a broad outline of what a model might look like” is replaced with “This essay briefly surveys significant areas of disagreement in which the conflicts are demonstrated to be essentially ethical in nature.”
==================
Lines 8; 17-18: Perhaps restate as: “any model of the interaction between science and faith”. As it stands, it is unclear what is being modeled. Clarification added.
Lines 4-8; 17-18: Two claims are made, and it is unclear whether the paper will argue they are true, whether the paper takes their veracity as a starting point for purposes of discussion, or whether you assert their veracity to be self-evident and in no need of justification. One claim is that viewing faith and science as respective institutions is required in order to appreciate their ethical components. It isn’t clear whether this ethical component refers to the interaction between faith and science, or to the two respective things, independently, or something else. But in any case, it is not immediately obvious that an appreciation of the ethical component is not possible from the first two views (methodology and body of knowledge). The second claim is that the ethical component must be included in any model of science and faith in the 21st century. Why is this true? Was it not true in previous centuries? Again, is this a bare assertion or starting point for the paper, or will the paper argue this?
Your comments are helpful, and get to the point of the paper. The first claim will be supported with an added citation of Barbour’s book (which is referenced at the beginning of the essay). Barbour addresses the differences in methodologies and distinct bodies on knowledge, but does not deal with each as institutions and the resulting ethical ramifications. The second claimed is argued in the essay, particularly in the interaction with Reeve’s book, Redeeming Expertise.
Line 40: I am now noticing a pattern that sentences are occasionally italicized, for no apparent reason. I assume it is for emphasis, but it seems overdone. Noted. The italicized sentences are intended as section headers, or summations. In the remainder of the paper the headers are the beginning sentence of the section, thus hopefully reducing confusion.
Line 40: Faith is equated with “body of knowledge.” But earlier, faith was defined as having three definitions, one of which was a body of knowledge. So are you here employing that one, of the three definitions? Further, this body of knowledge is equated with the Apostle’s Creed. While there is knowledge expressed in that creed, is there not much more to the body of knowledge? Or are you wanting to limit that body of knowledge here for the paper’s purposes? It seems that later in the paragraph you equate it with Lewis’s “mere Christianity,” although there is no citation, or definition given, for what this actually means.
The section presents three working definitions of faith. Lines 65-66 explain this: “So, in this paper faith refers to 1) the body of historic Christian beliefs, 2) assembled by Christian theology, and 3) affirmed by the universal Church in general.” A citation of Lewis’ Mere Christianity is added.
Lines 39-49: This paragraph seems to be rambling, and not clear that the personal biographical information relevant. Also, it is here that the “faith” of which the paper addresses is specifically some form of Christianity. You may want to make this clear earlier.
Since the theme for the series is “Science from a Biblical Perspective,” I wanted the readers to know what perspective I am coming from.
Lines 39-53: So these two paragraphs appear to refer to the first two definitions of faith, of the three given earlier in the paper, and yet inexplicably, the order is reversed, adding confusion to readers attempting to sort out what the paper is saying.
Changed the order to make it consistent with the rest of the paper.
Line 62: It appears that the body of knowledge referred to earlier has now been replaced with beliefs.
Christians affirm their beliefs as knowledge. In fact, many define knowledge as justified belief.
Lines 81-82: Without an example or two, it is impossible for the reader to know to what you are referring, and this simply comes off as an anti-science, partisan, shot without justification.
Added citation from Paul Scherz, Science and Christian Ethics.
Line 106: Majority? That claim is not supported by Footnote 6.
Edward Larson and Michael Ruse make the claim on pages 5-9 of On Faith and Science, as cited in the footnote.
Line 107: Define STEM?
“Science, technology, engineering, and math” is added to footnote 6.
Line 108: What is “the other side of the theological aisle”?
“from Huxley” added.
Lines 148, 162, 174, 332: Split infinitive.
Fixed
Line 149: “most”? This is a non-obvious, yet unsupported claim.
See footnote 6 and 11. The claim is noncontroversial among most historians of science.
Lines 172-173: “almost universally”? This seems to contradict Lines 110-113. The paper seems to have internal contradictions.
Evangelicals almost universally affirm the Friends model. Many contradict their affirmations. The internal contradictions are within the Evangelical community.
Line 190: Missing a period.
Fixed.
Line 212: Not clear to what this refers. One or more examples might help.
Climate change denial and antivaccination are just a couple of examples.
Line 217: Why the exclamation mark? I would delete.
Thank you! An earlier editor added it.
Line 244: This is a substantial claim that is not only unsupported, but not clearly explained. Needs more detail if the paper is going to include this.
Citation added: Naomi Oreskes, Why Trust Science? (Princeton: Princeton Univ., 2017). The last section of the paper addresses this claim directly.
Lines 254-256: Double check this. Are you sure about this? As I understand it, the problem was disruption of certain radar altimeter equipment, which the FCC had not fully appreciated or understood.
Doublechecked. The FCC claimed it did fully understand and disagreed about the risk.
Line 263: This is an on-going problem, and has more to do with journalism than science. Need to avoid holding science accountable for the headlines created by editors.
Agreed
Line 306: I didn’t know that.
This is a colloquialism that seems to fit and can be indulged.
Line 336: How is this relevant?
Lines 333-36 deleted.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
