| Relationship Between Religion And Science |
Article Index for Relationship |
Website Links For Relationship |
Information AboutRelationship Between Religion And Science |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE | |
| history of science | |
| history of religion | |
| integral thought | |
| religion and science | |
|
The relationship between Religion and Science takes many forms as the two fields are both broad. They employ different methods and address different questions. The Scientific Method relies on an Objective Approach to measure, calculate, and describe the Natural /physical/material Universe . Religious methods are usually more Subjective (or Intersubjective in community), relying on varying notions of authority, ideas believed to have been revealed, intuition, belief in the Supernatural , individual experience, "reasoned" observations about life or the universe or a combination of these to understand the universe. Science attempts to answer the "how" and "what" questions of observable and verifiable phenomena; religion attempts to answer the "why" questions of value, morals and spirituality. Some religious authority also extends to "how" and "what" questions regarding the natural world, creating the potential for conflict. OVERVIEW Historically, science has had a complex relationship with religion; religious doctrines and motivations have sometimes influenced scientific development, while scientific knowledge has had effects on religious beliefs. A common modern view, described by and Andrew Dickson White . However, neither of these views adequately accounts for the variety of interactions between science and religion (both historically and today), ranging from antagonism to separation to close collaboration.Gary Ferngren (editor). ''Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction''. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0 The kinds of interactions that might arise between science and religion have been classified by John Polkinghorne FRS John Polkinghorne ''Science and Theology'' SPCK/Fortress Press, 1998. ISBN 0-8006-3153-6 pp20-22, following Ian Barbour as: # Conflict when either discipline threatens to take over the legitimate concerns of the other # Independence treating each as quite separate realms of enquiry. # Dialogue suggesting that each field has things to say to each other about phenomena in which their interests overlap. # Integration aiming to unify both fields into a single discourse. Polkinghorne further suggests that 3 and 4 can be classified in terms of: :a. Consonance The two fields retain due autonomies, but the statements they make must be capable of appropriate reconciliation with each other without strain :b. Assimilation An attempt at the maximum possible conceptual meeting. Neither is absorbed totally by the other, but they are brought closely together. PERSPECTIVES ON THE HISTORICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE in a 14th century copy of '' L'Image Du Monde '' (ca. 1246).]] The . However, most contemporary historians of science now reject it, considering that the conflict thesis has been superseded by subsequent historical research,Quotation from Ferngren's introduction at "Gary Ferngren (editor). ''Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction''. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.": "''...while Brooke's view [of a complexity thesis rather than conflict thesis has gained widespread acceptance among professional historians of science, the traditional view remains strong elsewhere, not least in the popular mind.''" (p. x)Quotation from Colin A. Russell in "The Conflict Thesis" the first essay of "Gary Ferngren (editor). ''Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction''. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.": "''The conflict thesis, at least in its simple form, is now widely perceived as a wholly inadequate intellectual framework within which to construct a sensible and realistic historiography of Western science.''" (p. 7, followed by a list of the basic reasons why the conflict thesis is wrong). as is expressed by Gary Ferngren in his historical volume ''Science & Religion'':
Today, much of the scholarship in which the conflict thesis was based is considered to be inaccurate. For instance, a claim that was first propagated in the same period that originated the conflict thesisJeffrey Russell. Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians. Praeger Paperback; New Ed edition (January 30, 1997). ISBN-10: 027595904X; ISBN-13: 978-0275959043. is the supposition that the Catholic Church from the Middle Ages believed that the Earth Was Flat , and that only science, freed from religious dogma, had shown that it was round. This claim was mistaken, as the contemporary historians of science David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers write: "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge sphericity and even know its approximate circumference."Quotation from David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers in [http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1987/PSCF9-87Lindberg.html Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter between Christianity and Science . Studies in the History of Science and Christianity. THE ATTITUDES OF RELIGION TOWARDS SCIENCE Hinduism , Buddhism , Confucianism , Taoism , Judaism , Christianity , and Islam all developed many centuries prior to the modern era; their classical works show an appreciation of the natural world, but most of them express little or no interest in any systematic investigation of it for its own sake. However, Buddhism 's investigation of Dharma precludes the use of numerous non-systematic methods and sources, including authority, common sense, opinions, tradition, and scripture. Kalama Sutta Some early historical scientific texts have been preserved by religious groups, notably Islam collected scientific texts originating in various countries and Christianity brought them to Europe during the renaissance. Historical Judeo-Christian-Islamic view In the Medieval era, some leading thinkers in ''. the Jewish Philosopher Maimonides , and the Christian Philosopher Augustine Of Hippo , held that if religious teachings were found to contradict certain direct observations about the natural world, then it would be obligatory to re-evaluate either the interpretation of the scientific facts or the understanding of the scriptures. The best knowledge of the cosmos was seen as an important part of arriving at a better understanding of the Bible, but not yet equal with the authority of the Bible. This approach has continued down to the present day; Henry Drummond , for example, was a 19th century Scot who wrote many articles, some of which drew on scientific knowledge to tease out and illustrate Christian ideas. From the 11th century, however, Scientific Method s were being applied by both Muslim Scientists and Christian scientists to domains such as Optics and Planet ary Orbit s, with results which threatened the Church 's sacred dogma. Christianity asserted religious certainty at the expense of scientific knowledge, by giving more explicit sanction to officially correct views of nature and scripture. Similar developments occurred in other religions. This approach, while it tended to temporarily stabilize doctrine, was also inclined toward making philosophical and scientific orthodoxy less open to correction, as accepted philosophy became the religiously sanctioned science. Observation and theory became subordinate to dogma. Islam took an even harder line, canonizing Medieval science and effectively bringing an end to further scientific advance in the Muslim world. In Europe, scientists and scholars of the Enlightenment responded to such restrictions with increasing skepticism. Religious fundamentalism and scientific enlightenment The phenomenon of religious Fundamentalism , especially Protestant , Christian Fundamentalism which has arisen predominantly in the United States, has been characterized by some historians as originating in the reaction of the conservative Enlightenment against the liberal Enlightenment. In these terms, the scientific community is entirely committed to the skeptical Enlightenment, and has incorporated, into its understanding of the Scientific Method , an antipathy toward all interference of religion at any point of the scientific enterprise, and especially in the development of theory. While many popularizers of science rely heavily on religious allusions and metaphors in their books and articles, there is absolutely no orthodoxy in such matters, other than the literary value of eclecticism, and the dictates of the marketplace. Typically, fundamentalists are considerably less open to compromise and harmonization schemes than their forebears. They are far more inclined to make strict identification between religiously sanctioned science, and religious orthodoxy; and yet, they share with their early Enlightenment forebears the same optimism that religion is ultimately in harmony with "true" science. They typically favor a cautious empiricism over imaginative and probabilistic theories. This is reflected also in their Historical-grammatical approach to scripture and tradition, which they increasingly view as a source of scientific and religious certainty. Most significantly, they are openly hostile to the scientific community as a whole, and to what they call " Scientific Materialism ". The fundamentalist approach to modernity has also been adopted by the Islam ic movements among Sunni and Shi'a Muslims across the world. For example, an Enlightenment view of the cosmos is accepted as fact, and read back into ancient texts and traditions, as though they were originally intended to be read this way. Fundamentalists often make claims that issues of modern interest, such as psychology, nutrition, genetics, physics and space travel, are spoken to directly by their ancient traditions, "foretold", in a sense, by their religion's sacred texts. For example, some Muslim fundamentalists and Muslims claim that quantum mechanics and relativity were predicted in the Qur'an , while Jews claim that the Torah can be understood according to modern sciences. In response to the freethought encouraged by Enlightenment thinkers over the last two centuries, many people have left organized religion altogether. Many people became . People in these groups no longer accept any religious doctrine or perspective which rests solely on dogmatic authority. Non-fundamentalist religious views In between these positions lies that of non-fundamentalist religious believers. A great many Christians and Jews still accept some or many traditional religious beliefs taught in their respective faith communities, but they no longer accept their tradition's teachings as unquestionable and infallible (indeed this is a basic tenet of mainstream Protestant Christian thought and of other faith perspectives open to dialogue with science). Liberal religious believers do believe in god(s), and believe that in some way their god(s) Revealed Their Will to humanity. They differ from religious fundamentalists in that they accept that even if their religious texts were divinely inspired, they are also human documents which reflect the cultural and historic limitations and biases of their authors. Such believers are often comfortable with the findings of Archaeological and Linguistic research and Historical-critical study. They will often make use of literary and historical analysis of religious texts to understand how they developed, and to see how they might be applied in our own day. This approach developed among Protestant scholars in the 18th and 19th centuries, and is now to found among other Christians, Liberal Jewish communities and others. Some religious approaches acknowledge the historical relationship between modern science and ancient doctrines. For example, . Bahá'í view In the Bahá'í Faith , the Harmony Of Science And Religion is a central tenet. The principle states that truth is one, and therefore true science and true religion must be in harmony, thus rejecting the view that science and religion are in conflict.1 `Abdu'l-Bahá , the son of the founder of the religion, asserted that science and religion cannot be opposed because they are aspects of the same truth; he also affirmed that reasoning powers are required to understand the truths of religion and that religious teachings which are at variance with science should not be accepted; he explained that religion has to be reasonable since God endowed humankind with reason so that they can discover truth.2 Shoghi Effendi , the Guardian of the Bahá'í Faith, described science and religion as "the two most potent forces in human life."3 Science and religion, in the Bahá'í writings, are compared to the two wings of a bird upon which a person's intelligence can increase, and upon which a person's soul can progress. Furthermore, the Bahá'í writings state that science without religion would lead to a person becoming totally materialistic, and religion without science would lead to a person falling into superstitious practices. Hindu view The term "Hinduism," like the word religion, requires special attention before one can adequately discuss relationships. Jonathan Edelmann has argued that an essential or singular definition of Hinduism is misleading, even though a number of Hindus have attempted to say what ''the'' relationship with Hinduism and science is. Edelmann argues that any constructed relationship between Hinduism and science must specify which of the many Hindu traditions is being used, since the term Hinduism can apply to any number of theological and ontological views, ranging from personal theism to atheism. Some proponents of Hinduism claim that Hinduism is not afraid of scientific explorations, nor of the technological progress of mankind. According to them, there is a comprehensive scope and opportunity for Hinduism to mold itself according to the demands and aspirations of the modern world; it has the ability to align itself with both Science and Spiritualism . This religion uses some modern examples to explain its ancient theories and reinforce its own beliefs. For example, some Hindu thinkers have used the terminology of Quantum Physics to explain some basic concepts of Hinduism such as '' Maya '', the illusory and impermanent nature of our existence. THE ATTITUDES OF SCIENTISTS TOWARDS RELIGION According to a 1996 survey, belief in a god that is "in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" and belief in "personal Immortality " are most popular among Mathematician s and least popular among Biologist s. In total, about 60% of scientists in the United States expressed disbelief or doubt in such a god.As Alister McGrath points out in The God Delusion this definition would exclude Deists and people like Einstein who believe(d) "in Spinoza 's God" This compared with 58% in 1914 and 67% in 1933. Among leading scientists defined as members of the National Academy Of Sciences , 72.2% expressed disbelief and 93% - disbelief or doubt in the existence of a personal god in 1998.Larson and Witham, 1998 "Leading Scientists Still Reject God" A survey conducted between 2005 and 2007 by Elaine Ecklund of University At Buffalo, The State University Of New York and funded by the Templeton Foundation found that over 60% of natural and social science professors are atheist or agnostic. When asked whether they believed in God, nearly 34% answered "I do not believe in God" and about 30% answering "I do not know if there is a God and there is no way to find out,"http://religion.ssrc.org/reforum/Ecklund/ According to the same survey, " scientists see themselves as having a spirituality not attached to a particular religious tradition."[http://www.livescience.com/othernews/050811_scientists_god.html Ref to survey at Livescience article from Physorg.com In further analysis, published in 2007, Eckland and Christopher Scheitle conclude that "the assumption that becoming a scientist necessarily leads to loss of religion is untenable" and that "[i]t appears that those from non-religious backgrounds disproportionately self-select into scientific professions. This may reflect the fact that there is tension between the religious tenets of some groups and the theories and methods of particular sciences and it contributes to the large number of non-religious scientists."http://www.buffalo.edu/news/8732 Richard Dawkins Asserts That religions make predictions about the real world which makes them testable scientific theories. The argument is that gods and deities that answer Prayer s inevitably require an overlap with the natural world and thus become observable and testable:4 The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question, even if it is not in practice — or not yet — a decided one. {Link without Title} The moment religion steps on science's turf and starts to meddle in the real world with Miracle s, it ceases to be religion in the sense Gould is defending, and his '' amicabilis concordia'' is broken. Note, however, that the miracle-free religion defended by Gould would not be recognized by most practising theists in the pew or on the prayer mat. SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION See Also: religious studies psychology of religion sociology of religion development of religion comparative religion anthropology of religion neurotheology Scientific studies have been done on showing that membership of religious groups was positively correllated with membership of voluntary organisations Studies by Keith Ward show that overall religion is a positive contributor to mental health. Is Religion Dangerous? Ch 9. Michael Argyle and others claim that there is little or no evidence that religion ever causes mental disorders.quoting Michael Argyle and others Some historians, philosophers and scientists hope that the theory of Memetics , reminiscent of the theory of Genetics , will allow the modeling of the evolution of human culture, including philosophy and religion. Daniel Dennett 's book Breaking The Spell attempts to begin such an analysis of modern religions. The idea that evolutionary processes are involved in the development of human culture and religion is not particularly controversial among natural scientists, however other approaches based on social sciences such as Anthropology , Psychology , Sociology and Economics are more prevalent in academic use. PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Since the era of Logical Positivism , the Philosophy Of Science has shifted away from Scientific Realism towards Instrumentalism and Confirmation Holism , both of which weigh in significantly on the relationship of science and religion. Scientific realism tends to rely on the Hypothetico-deductive Method . This requires that evidence inconsistent with a theory's initial predictions be taken as Falsification of it. For instance, Neptune was discovered when Uranus deviated from its path as predicted by Newton's theory of Gravity . Had Neptune been unobservable by telescope, the theory that an undiscovered planet had caused the deviation would have been falsified. Central religious claims are often held to be unfalsifiable (or at least exceedingly hard to falsify to the point of being practically unfalsifiable), and hence adverse to science, or at least outside the domain of science; the coupling of religion and science is often described as Pseudoscience . Instrumentalism postulates that concepts and theories are merely useful instruments whose worth is measured not by whether the concepts and theories are true or false (or correctly depict reality), but by how effective they are in explaining and predicting phenomena. As such, it may accept some methods of inquiry and sources of information, those of a religious variety in particular, which are seen as taboo by the majority of logical positivist and realist scientists. Fore example, as long as the theory that praying cures diseases can sufficiently explain and predict the phenomenon, it would be taken as a useful theory by instrumentalist scientists, without considering it's truth value. Paul Feyerabend 's "scientific anarchy" posits a similar view on the nature of scientific inquiry. Under this view, religion is not seen as being, in principle, incompatible with science. Confirmation holism postulates that no concept or theory stands by itself. In other words, a concept or theory only makes sense, and can only be proven or falsified, in terms of the system of which it is a part. For example, a medical doctor may hypothesize as to why a patient has developed a rash, but this theory may in turn depend upon the patient having been in contact with Poison Ivy , which may in turn depend upon poison ivy being present in the locale or the person having recently travelled to a region where it was present, and so forth. Some concepts and theories may rest on other proven concepts and theories, while others may require proving (or assuming) the underlying concepts and theories first. This view has primarily developed out of the work of philosopher and logician W. V. Quine , and philosopher of math and science Imre Lakatos (a student of Karl Popper ) who was influenced by Quine as well as by Thomas Samuel Kuhn . Lakatos taught that scientists work within an organic system of concepts and theories (Kuhn referred to it as a Paradigm , Lakatos called it a Research Program , Quine called it a conceptual scheme), that the core concepts and theories of this system are held with personal commitment, and that they will resist falsification by ''ad hoc'' modification or the addition and deletion of peripheral concepts and theories (a weakness in Naïve Falsificationism which Popper himself acknowledged). In this view, religion is likewise not seen as being, in principle, incompatible with science. SEE ALSO
NOTES REFERENCES
ADDITIONAL READING
EXTERNAL LINKS
|
|
|