Dr Taede A Smedes Introduction 2 Ian Barbour 19232013 3 Conflict Science and religion make rival statements about the same domain so that one must choose between them They cant both be true ID: 616914
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Science and Belief: Do We Have To Choose..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Science and Belief: Do We Have To Choose?
Dr.
Taede
A.
SmedesSlide2
Introduction
2Slide3
Ian Barbour (1923-2013)
3Slide4
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. 4Slide5
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
5Slide6
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)
6Slide7
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.
7Slide8
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.”
8Slide9
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).
9Slide10
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).
10Slide11
Dialogue
There are specific topics which science and religion can have a conversation about.
11Slide12
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 parallelsThomas Kuhn: paradigms (science e.g
. Newtonian and Einsteinian).
(theology e.g
. Incarnational theology and Trinitarian).
Michael
Polanyi: scientific
knowledge in science and religion.
12Slide13
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.
13Slide14
Integration
An integration between the content of theology and the content of science.
A
direct relation between theological doctrines and particular scientific theories.
Unity.
14Slide15
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).
15Slide16
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)
16Slide17
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
.
17Slide18
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…
18Slide19
Where does the conflict
come
from
?
Misunderstandings
:
Nature of science: “scientism”: overstated faith
in
what
science
can
do
19Slide20
Where does the conflict
come
from
?
Misunderstandings
:
Nature of science: “scientism”: overstated faith
in
what
science
can
do
Nature of
Scripture
:
Not
a
science
textbook
Not
a
history
book
Compilation
of different
texts
,
written
and
compiled
by
humans
E.g. 2
creation
stories
20Slide21
Where does the conflict
come
from
?
Misunderstandings
:
Nature of God & religionCategory mistakes: thinking and speaking
about
God as
if
God was a part of
our
physical
world
(
mistake
the
picture
for
reality
).
“University”
“
Our
Father
who
art in
Heaven
…”
God is
not
in
competition
with
nature,
not
a
cause
among
causes
,
and
God does
not
play
soccer
…
“
Domesticating
”
transcendence.
21Slide22
Where does the conflict
come
from
?
“
Cultural
scientism”: The scientific way of thinking that
pervades
our
Western culture.
E.g. Charles Taylor,
A
Secular
Age
(2007).
22Slide23
Where does the conflict
come
from
?
Philosopher
Rhush Rhees:“… the
prevalance
of
science
affects
the
way we
think
of
things
, or look at
things
,
besides
the
special
matters
which
it
investigates
. It
may
affect
the
way in
which
we
understand
questions
in
religion
or in art,
for
instance
, even
if
we are
not
trying
to
introduce
scientific
method
into
them
.”
(
Rhush
Rhees, Without Answers. New York: Shocken Books 1969, 6)
23Slide24
Where does the conflict
come
from
?
Philosopher
Rhush Rhees:“… the prevalance
of
science
affects
the
way we
think
of
things
, or look at
things
,
besides
the
special
matters
which
it
investigates
. It
may
affect
the
way in
which
we
understand
questions
in
religion
or in art,
for
instance
, even
if
we are
not
trying
to
introduce
scientific
method
into
them
.”
(
Rhush
Rhees
, Without Answers. New York: Shocken Books 1969, 6)
“…
this
only shows how a preoccupation with the manners and achievements of science may help to make men stupid. (…) There is no reason to think that the methods which have been succesful in science will be of help in the face of other difficulties which are not scientific problems at all.” (Rhush Rhees, Without Answers. New York: Shocken Books 1969, 5)
24Slide25
25Slide26
Where does the conflict
come
from
?
(
answer
:)By turning religion
into
a (pseudo-)
scientific
explanation
!
26Slide27
Science and belief: Do we have
to
choose
?
(
answer
:)Only if religion is
turned
into
a (pseudo-)
scientific
explanation
!
27Slide28
Science and belief: Do we have
to
choose
?
(
answer
:)Only if religion is turned
into
a (pseudo-)
scientific
explanation
…
(…
which
I
think
is wrong!)
28Slide29
29Slide30
30Slide31
Science and religion
:
same
world
, different
aspects
31Slide32
Science and
religion
:
same
world
, different aspects
Science and religion: different perspectives on the
same
world
.
Every
perspective
has
its
own
internal
logic,
its
own
way of “
connecting
the
dots
”.
Words
used
in different
contexts
(
science
,
religion
) have different
meanings
.
Religious
faith
is like
seeing
a
Gestalt
.
32Slide33
Science and
religion
:
same
world
, different aspects
33Slide34
Science and
religion
:
same
world
, different aspects
34Slide35
Science and
religion
:
same
world
, different aspects
35Slide36
Science and
religion
:
same
world
, different aspects
36Slide37
So
does
that
mean
that
I’m defending an independence-position?Not
quite
:
Role
of culture as
an
intermediary
Assumption
that
science
and
religion
are
about
the
same
world
Possibility
of “
resonances
”: e.g. big bang
theory
,
evolution
&
notion
of
creation
Something
“
resounds
”, but
they’re
not
identical
Because
they’re
different
perspectives
,
science
and
religion
can
have a
dialogue
37