Matthew Stanley writes:
"The secular scientists engaged in the debate could not conceive of a religious scientist; conversely, their religious colleagues could see no barrier between their faith and their work. During the debate, the first group was startled to see a significant strength of religion within their ranks when religion had been so successfully driven from the content of science. How had this fifth column penetrated the fortress of science?
The answer is that it had never left."
That's in reference to a 1988 debate on religion & science that broke out in the pages of a scientific journal. It's a quote from the introduction to a new book by a historian of science:
Practical Mystic: Religion, Science, and A.S. Eddington, by Matthew Stanley. University of Chicago Press, 2007.
Eddington was a famous astrophysicist, science popularizer and devout Quaker. Stanley argues that there really is no such abstract entities as "religion and science." Thus he takes a fairly nuanced approach that stresses the importance of context, in looking at the relationship between a specific field of science and a unique, individual scientist representing a particular religious tradition.
In a related note, remember that article I posted on awhile back about the relationship between religious views and genetic engineering? The molecular biologist in question argued that North American resistance arose from Judeo-Christian beliefs, while European resistance came from airy-fairy New Age beliefs. I came across an interview with Michael Pollan today in which he touched on European resistance to GMOs and gave a few secular reasons why some Europeans are understandably leery of the whole thing. Based on that and a few other arguments I've seen, I get the impression that this particular biologist likes to dismiss any and all resistance to his field of science as stupid, rank superstition, regardless of the arguments the people are actually making.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Certainly a scientist is capable of being a believer in religion---but only, in my opinion, by not thinking like a scientist on the subject of religion---by not holding religious claims up to the sort of critical standards that he does for a hypothesis in his scientific work..
Humans, including scientists, are more than capable of compartmentalizing their thinking.
Certainly a scientist is capable of being an artist -- but only, in my opinion, by not holding artistic claims up to the sort of critical standards that he does for a hypothesis in his scientific work.
Certainly a scientist is capable of being a gourmet cook -- but only, in my opinion, by not holding gastronomic claims up to the sort of critical standards that he does for a hypothesis in his scientific work.
Certainly a scientist is capable of driving a motorcycle -- but only, in my opinion, by not following the scientific method to the exclusion of rules of the road.
This game is fun. Just pick any apples-to-oranges comparison! :)
It just sounds so silly. You usually don't use a screwdriver as a drawing tool. You can do it -- metal does leave a mark on paper -- but pencils and other sorts of tools do a much better job. Likewise, science and religion are both different tools used for different applications, even though they both investigate bits of the same grand Truth.
So scientists who are believers don't abandon their science toolbox; they use it in religious matters when appropriate, and apply other tools (like knees and folded hands, or theology, or the logic that's helpful both for science and religion) when that's appropriate. Taking the attitude that "OMG! I can't weigh God, and He won't sign the waiver so I can experiment on Him! So He must not exist!" is just foolish.
Maureen, science and religion both make factual claims.
A painting, a pot of chili and a ride on a motorcycle are not factual claims.
The claim that God exists, or that Jesus rose from the dead, or that reincarnation occurs, or that there's an afterlife, obviously, ARE factual claims.
And are susceptible to support by empirical evidence (for example, if our dead relatives visited now and then in ghostly form for all to see so that we would not suspect hallucination as in the case of a single individuals sightings, we'd have good empirical confirmation of an afterlife)---we simply have no good empirical evidence of this sort in their favor.
Likewise, science and religion are both different tools used for different applications, even though they both investigate bits of the same grand Truth.
The difference is that science actually provides us good methods for distinguishing a true claim from ones that are false or unfounded.
Religion, however, does not.
If you disagree I would be glad to hear how religion can provide us with good reason to believe, for example, that an afterlife exists which does not involve empirical evidence.
the bible itself gives a good example of an empirical test for a dispute over whose religion is true in the story of Elijah and the priests of Baal.
Elijah challenges them to see whose god is the true God. Both of them call on their god to send down fire from the heavens to light their altar. The priests of Baal, according to the tale, fail.
Elijah succeeds.
Too bad (or perhaps, too conveniently) these stories are always set in the distant, unconfirmable and unfalsifiable, past.
I would imagine, regarding the relationship between religion and science, that it is much like the relationship between the Old and New Testaments: The Old foretells the New, and the New explains the Old. In a similar way, science gives us the history and context and image to work off of which describes religion and God to us and points us to him, and religion and God explains the meaning of what science has shown us. In that way, both are required for either to have its full meaning and understanding.
Post a Comment