Download
1 / 37
370 likes | 372 Views
Explore the conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration between science and religion, and how they can coexist and contribute to our understanding of the world.
E N D
Science and Belief: Do We Have To Choose? Dr. Taede A. Smedes
Conflict Science and religion make rival statements about the same domain, so that one must choose between them. They can’t both be true. Religion and science are enemies.
Conflict Scientific materialism (scientism) Epistemological: scientific method is the only reliable path to knowledge. Metaphysical: only what science can discover is to be considered real. Biblical literalism (religious fundamentalism) Creationism & Intelligent Design
Conflict “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless. But if there is no solace in the fruits of research, there is at least some consolation in the research itself. … The effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things that lifts human life above the level of farce, and gives it some of the grace of tragedy.” (Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes. New York: Basic Books 1977, 144)
Conflict Pro: nothing Contra: Scientific materialism (scientism) Failure to distinguish between scientific and philosophical questions. Authority of science for ideas that are not part of science itself. Scientific concepts extended beyond their scientific use. Biblical literalism (religious fundamentalism) The Bible is not meant to be a scientifically or historically accurate handbook. Hermeneutics and historical sciences are simply ignored.
Independence Science and religion both have their own distinctive domain and their own characteristic methods. “Science tells us how the heavens go, religion tells us how to go to heaven.”
Independence Contrasting methods E.g. Protestant neo-orthodoxy (Karl Barth): theology starts from revelation, science from human reason E.g. Existentialism: science deals with the realm of impersonal objects, theology deals with the realm of personal selfhood Differing languages Scientific language is used for prediction and control; religious language is to recommend a way of life, to elicit a set of attitudes, and to encourage allegiance to particular moral principles. Differing domains E.g. Stephen Jay Gould: Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA: science is about facts, religion about values).
Independence Pro: Preserves the distinctive character of both science and religion. It’s a useful strategy for responding to conflict. Contra: Pulls science and religion perhaps too far apart. Plurality of languages is problematic if they are languages about the same world. “If we seek a coherent interpretation of all experience, we cannot avoid the search for a unified world view” (Barbour).
Dialogue There are specific topics which science and religion can have a conversation about.
Dialogue Presuppositions and limit questions Doctrine of creation (disenchantment of the world) and the historical rise of science. Limit questions: ontological questions raised by the scientific enterprise as a whole but answered by the methods of science. Methodological parallels Thomas Kuhn: paradigms (science e.g. Newtonian and Einsteinian). (theology e.g. Incarnational theology and Trinitarian). Michael Polanyi: scientific knowledge in science and religion.
Dialogue Pro: Constructive engagement, beneficial for mutual understanding, striving for a common vision. Contra: Focus on the similarities between science and religion, passing the differences. Danger of distorting the diverse characteristics of both science and religion. Methodological parallels merely interesting for philosophers of science and theologians, somewhat abstract, less interesting for religious believers or scientists.
Integration An integration between the content of theology and the content of science. A direct relation between theological doctrines and particular scientific theories. Unity.
Integration Natural theology The existence of God can be inferred from the evidences of design in nature, of which science has made us more aware. E.g. cosmological argument (first cause or a necessary being on which all contingent beings are dependent), argument to design (Paley).
Integration “I conclude from the existence of these accidents of physics and astronomy that the universe is an unexpectedly hospitable place for living creatures to make their home in. Being a scientist, trained in the habits of thought and language of the twentieth century rather than the eighteenth, I do not claim that the architecture of the universe proves the existence of God. I claim only that the architecture of the universe is consistent with the hypothesis that mind plays an essential role in its functioning.” (Freeman Dyson, Disturbing the Universe. New York: Harper & Row 1979, 251)
Integration Natural theology The existence of God can be inferred from the evidences of design in nature, of which science has made us more aware. Cosmological argument, design argument. Theology of nature Scientific theories may call for a reformulation of certain doctrines. Arthur Peacocke on divine action. Systematic synthesis Science and religion are combined in an inclusive metaphysical system. E.g. process philosophy, Spinoza’s pantheism.
Integration Pro: A strong common and coherent vision, no more conflict. Contra: No more differences, it’s all the same. Distortions in the nature of science and religion (e.g. natural theology: treating God as an explanation). Too much dependence on science: a marriage between science and theology can result in theology becoming a widow as science progresses…
Where does the conflict comefrom? Misunderstandings: • Nature of science: • “scientism”: overstatedfaith in whatsciencecan do
Where does the conflict comefrom? Misunderstandings: • Nature of science: • “scientism”: overstatedfaith in whatsciencecan do • Nature of Scripture: • Not a sciencetextbook • Not a historybook • Compilation of different texts, writtenandcompiledbyhumans • E.g. 2 creationstories
Where does the conflict comefrom? Misunderstandings: • Nature of God & religion • Category mistakes: thinking andspeakingabout God as if God was a part of ourphysicalworld (mistakethe picture forreality). • “University” • “OurFatherwho art in Heaven…” • God is not in competitionwith nature, not a causeamongcauses, and God does notplaysoccer… • “Domesticating” transcendence.
Where does the conflict comefrom? “Culturalscientism”: The scientific way of thinking thatpervadesour Western culture. E.g. Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (2007).
Where does the conflict comefrom? PhilosopherRhushRhees: “… theprevalance of scienceaffectsthe way we think of things, or look at things, besidesthe special matterswhichitinvestigates. It may affect the way in which we understandquestions in religion or in art, forinstance, even if we are nottryingto introduce scientificmethodintothem.” (RhushRhees, Without Answers. New York: Shocken Books 1969, 6)
Where does the conflict comefrom? PhilosopherRhushRhees: “… theprevalance of scienceaffectsthe way we think of things, or look at things, besidesthe special matterswhichitinvestigates. It may affect the way in which we understandquestions in religion or in art, forinstance, even if we are nottryingto introduce scientificmethodintothem.” (RhushRhees, Without Answers. New York: Shocken Books 1969, 6) “… thisonly shows how a preoccupationwiththemannersandachievements of sciencemay help to make men stupid. (…) There is no reasontothinkthatthemethodswhich have been succesful in sciencewillbe of help in the face of otherdifficultieswhich are notscientificproblems at all.” (RhushRhees, Without Answers. New York: Shocken Books 1969, 5)
Where does the conflict comefrom? (answer:) Byturningreligion into a (pseudo-)scientific explanation!
Scienceand belief: Do we have tochoose? (answer:) Onlyifreligion is turned into a (pseudo-)scientific explanation!
Scienceand belief: Do we have tochoose? (answer:) Onlyifreligion is turned into a (pseudo-)scientific explanation… (…which I think is wrong!)
Scienceandreligion: sameworld, different aspects Scienceandreligion: different perspectives on thesameworld. Every perspective has itsowninternal logic, itsown way of “connectingthedots”. Wordsused in different contexts (science, religion) have different meanings. Religiousfaith is like seeing a Gestalt.
So does thatmeanthatI’mdefendinganindependence-position? • Notquite: • Role of culture as anintermediary • Assumptionthatscienceandreligion are aboutthesameworld • Possibility of “resonances”: e.g. big bang theory, evolution & notion of creation • Something “resounds”, but they’renotidentical • Becausethey’re different perspectives, scienceandreligioncan have a dialogue
