The idea that the world can be explained by natural processes is not a metaphysical assumption, opposed by the theist position that only God makes sense of the world. It is the way that science works.
Imagine for a moment a science experiment designed to test if God gave you a cold to improve your character... go ahead and try... I can't either. This does not deny that God could have given you a cold to improve your character - just that there is no scientific way to test the assertion. Further, from a scientific point of view, the pious notion that "the cold is from God" adds nothing to the germ theory of disease, or the search for the virus responsible, or the search for a cure.
It is the same for other areas of science. Its silence about the existence of God is an artifact of the scientific approach - not a metaphysical bias. In fact, adding a "proper theological perspective" in which you only consider possibilities that are supported by your reading of the bible would ruin science, because what you end up with is apologetics (justify faith, not explaining the natural world).
Science is not reigion. Its main fault in the eyes of conservative Christians is that it has failed to validate their theology - for which it is hardly to blame.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
So you think that conservative Christianity accepts the findings of science at odds with a literal reading of the Bible- old earth, common ancestory, no flood or special creation?
Science isn't God Mr. Myers.
You seem to have lost sight of that.
You are preaching the gospel of scientism.
A false gospel that you have ditched your "MDiv" for.
Science has not saved anyone from dying, (in fact, science caused the early death of my dad) has not brought peace to this planet, and has provided the means for the destruction of us all.
Its a tool used as much for evil as good.
I agree that science is not a religion, and it certainly is not my religion. Are you suggesting that because I don't agree with you, I must be wrong?
God gave us a brain, which we used to develop a tool we call science. With it, we have discovered things about the natural world, including that the earth is old and we evolved from common ancestors with all life on earth. This has nothing to do with faith, except as our experience in the world informs our reading of the Bible and our life with God.
Sorry about your dad.
Science isn't God.
But it IS a religion.
What you are pushing is the Gospel (Good News) of Scientism.
But science will not save us.
Unless Christ returns, the use of science will insure that there is "no flesh left".
Your gospel IS false, so yes...you are wrong.
I understand that this is your position - but I do not know why. Science is an an approach to understanding the world. To my way of thinking, it has none of the attributes of religion.
There may be some who reach a position of atheism based on what they have concluded from their study of science - but we have always had atheists.
Atheism is not a religion either.
Why do you think science is a religion? What are the things that make a religion (use yours for example) and please tell me in what way science meets those criteria?.
"Science is an an approach to understanding the world."
This is essentially the idea of epistemology.
While science is not a religion in the traditional sense, it is most certainly an approach to understanding the world.
This approach, however, is a set of a priori, unproved epistemological assumptions.
Now, I think they are quite useful and valid when applied to the appropriate data and spheres of understanding. But there is no doubt that the scientific method is/are an approach to knowledge based on assumptions and faith in those assumptions.
In that sense, at least, science and religion have similar foundations.
Jeff, I think I agree with you (though science does not feel the same, as science rooted in materialism, and (most) religions are based on a belief that at the heart of things is mystery.)
Also, science traditionally limits itself to a more narrow focus (the natural world), whereas religion encompasses all of human experience (true, some materialists would say this is the same thing). Religions tend to be prescriptive in areas science is not.
Finally, religions tend to deal with living in response to some deity. Science is largely descriptive and predictive as concerns the natural world.
Greg -
Thanks for the response.
You say, religions are based on a belief that at the heart of things is mystery
I don't know if science is, at least epistemologically, any different. What is known is known. What is not known, is unknown. This is mystery - and is common to both religion and properly understood science.
I think what you may mean, though, is the idea in some religions that there are truths that are "unknowable", whereas science would remain "agnostic" as to whether there are limits of knowledge. I think when pressed however, this is a semantic distinction without much differentiating result.
I think the real difference lies in the opposite claim you make about religion:
[r]eligions tend to be prescriptive in areas science is not.
I think this is, again, a selective and somewhat arbitrary distinction. For science tends to be prescriptive in areas that religion is not. (E.g., I know of no religious dogma relating to the Kirchoff's voltage/current/resistance relationships).
That is, science tends to be prescriptive in areas of physical science, whereas religion tends to be prescriptive in areas of moral conduct. (Thinking of Gould's non-overlapping magisteria.)
As Einstein pondered, "Religion without science is blind; science without religion is lame."
Complimentary epistemologies - not competing or contradictory ones.
(And here, as earlier, I am using religion to describe a philosophical approach to reality that recognizes (presumes) the possibility of spiritual existence - not in the sense of worked-out systems of dogma.)
Jeff, I am uncomfortable with an approach that makes science and religion equivalent ways of knowing for several reasons.
1. I describe myself as a scientific realist. As such, I believe that both religion and science attempt to describe things as they actually exist. Religion gets its models from revelation and reason (mediated through tradition). Science, via sensory data and reason (again, within a traditional framework of what is possible to imagine).
The realm that science attempts to describe is smaller than the one that religion tries to describe. For example, most religions answer the question, "Why are we here." Science does not.
2. When it comes to the natural world, science has been much more effective than religion. This is strictly an argument about utility. If you want to find oil, you can pray, consult the scriptures, or hire a geologist trained in earth sciences. Overwhelmingly, companies that have wanted to find oil go with the later, because it works, not just a little bit better than the other options, but immeasurably better. On the other hand, when you want to know the meaning of life, science seems singularly unequipped to offer an answer.
The place where the epistemologies overlap is the rub. When religion makes claims about the natural world (for example, about the age of the earth), and science reaches a different conclusion, you have to choose. The way you chose impacts how you view other claims of science or religion. For example, biblical literalists are skeptical and derisive of many claims made by scientists that do not impinge on their faith (for example, global warming), and classical liberals are skeptical about many of the claims made by the bible (for example, the resurrection of Jesus), about which science makes few, if any, claims.
An additional difficulty with keeping the two epistemologies separate is the growing sense that there is no place in which to locate the spiritual. Recently, science seems to suggest that religion's model of body, mind, soul and spirit may more accurately collapse into body, just like the realm of heaven has collapsed from a physical location above the sky to some sort of extra-dimensional place with some unspecified spirit / material interface that is far beyond any biblical (at least) model.
This still leaves the practical issue of how religion is to inform science, and how science is to inform religion (that is, how do you actually implement Einstein's dictum)?
I suspect that how it really works in practice is that you temper your revelation to eliminate or reinterpret what you suppose is scientifically impossible (and for that matter, culturally unacceptable).
Religion then provides a framework for discoveries about the natural world, articulating a story of why we are here, and what we are supposed to do with the potential implied by our growing understanding of the natural world.
Greg -
You write,
"I am uncomfortable with an approach that makes science and religion equivalent ways of knowing for several reasons."
While I appreciate your discomfort, I don't see precisely how it is relevant to the truth of the issue.
"I believe that both religion and science attempt to describe things as they actually exist."
Agreed.
"Religion gets its models from revelation and reason (mediated through tradition). Science, via sensory data and reason (again, within a traditional framework of what is possible to imagine)."
Also agreed. However, note that you've now moved from the underlying perceptual frameworks of these two epistemologies to the actual epistemologies themselves. I think it is the confusion of the underpinnings with the methods that are causing your "discomfort".
"When it comes to the natural world, science has been much more effective than religion."
Absolutely. In fact, the methods of scientific understanding have, beyond dispute, proved to be the most effective means of interpreting physical phenomena and reaching a relatively high degree of certainty (i.e., to the point that there remains little disputation of the subject issues).
On the other hand, religion has been entirely more successful at establishing theories of purpose, meaning, love and beauty than has science.
Again, non-overlapping magisteria.
When religion makes claims about the natural world (for example, about the age of the earth), and science reaches a different conclusion, you have to choose."
Agreed. And the smart money will generally always side with science when it comes to inducing general theories of behavior from physical data. On the issues of meaning, purposes, beauty, morality and the like, science is a dicey bet, at best.
You conclude,
"Religion then provides a framework for discoveries about the natural world, articulating a story of why we are here, and what we are supposed to do with the potential implied by our growing understanding of the natural world."
Exactly as I said earlier.
I don't see the tension between what you have described here and the premises I laid out previously.
It seems as though you're uncomfortable affording religion an equal epistemological footing to that of science. But this seems rather straightforward, as both methods begin with unprovable suppositions about the nature of reality, the comprehensibility of the universe, and the noetic reliability of human consciousness.
Jeff writes
"I think it is the confusion of the underpinnings with the methods that are causing your "discomfort"."
Would you elaborate on this? In what sense to you believe that both religion and science (methodological naturalism) are on the same footing?
and
"On the other hand, religion has been entirely more successful at establishing theories of purpose, meaning, love and beauty than has science."
Well, this is the question, isn't it? Has religion in fact established anything, beyond claims based on a series of interpretations of a given set of starting points? If you measure the resultant theories, have they "worked" in the same sense that scientific theories have worked?
You could make an argument that from a cultural / moral standpoint, very little has changed in recorded history, and what change has occurred has only a tenuous tie to religion. Contrast that with the head-spinning changes that technology (based on methodological naturalism) has generated in a few hundred years. Is it true that religious cultures are happier, wealthier, more relationally intact, longer-lived, more generous of spirit that non-religious cultures? That one particular religious culture is markedly better off that all others? Is humanism an inferior life philosophy?
You say you don't understand the tension between faith and science, but you didn't respond to that part of my post. The tension is that natural science are allowed to correct religious beliefs (you write "And the smart money will generally always side with science when it comes to inducing general theories of behavior from physical data."), but the reverse is not true - when religion insists that its dogma must be accepted instead of the best science, religion is (rightly) viewed as unwarranted interference and doomed to failure.
The magistra are only separate as long as religion makes no claims about the natural world. Because science investigates all the natural world, this effectively means that religion can speak of nothing that impacts our world. Yes, religion can advocate that one should live a life of love, but can make no claims about the efficacy of a life of love in this world, for example. Religion can say that God exists, but not that God makes any tangible impact on the world. This leaves to religion a magisteria of impotence and abstract possibilities, while science deals with what is, and the impact of what is on the world.
Personally, I think that as we expand our scientific understanding, we may well find God - because I don't think it makes any sense to talk about a God who does not impact history. In the process, science will continue to offer a lens through which to correct our understanding of religion. This is not because science is a religion, but because science is a tool for understanding what is really out there in the natural world - and so, unless God is not to be found in the world, science will eventually help us understand God as well.
"Would you elaborate on this? In what sense to you believe that both religion and science (methodological naturalism) are on the same footing?"
See my earlier posts.
"Is it true that religious cultures are happier, wealthier, more relationally intact, longer-lived, more generous of spirit that non-religious cultures? That one particular religious culture is markedly better off that all others? Is humanism an inferior life philosophy?"
I'm not advocating a particular religion. And, yes, the research I'm familiar with all concludes that religious people are generally happier and better off psychologically than areligious folk.
"The magistra are only separate as long as religion makes no claims about the natural world."
And as long as science makes no claims about spiritual existence.
"Because science investigates all the natural world, this effectively means that religion can speak of nothing that impacts our world."
This is patently and obviously untrue. Love, beauty, morality, meaning, and purpose, as far as I can tell, are immensely impactful to human existence in this world.
Again, you're getting the magisteria confused.
"This leaves to religion a magisteria of impotence and abstract possibilities, while science deals with what is, and the impact of what is on the world.
"
This is again where you err and misapply the tools and value of scientific inquiry and processes to spheres where it has no coherence.
"This is not because science is a religion, but because science is a tool for understanding what is really out there in the natural world - and so, unless God is not to be found in the world, science will eventually help us understand God as well."
While, as I've said on a couple of occasions now, science is not a religion, it is, as you say you agree, an epistemological framework just as religion is - but applied to a subset of the data - only to the physical data. You are overreaching by claiming that all data is physical. This is an unproved assumption of methodological naturalism and ultimately self-refuting.
I think we initially agreed because you weren't either clear or forthright with what you now appear to be saying. You seem to be taking the traditional hardcore ontological monist position of radical reductionism, which is understood to be self-defeating as far as I can tell.
You were on much better ground with the consistent approach of Gould, Sagan and others by properly identifying science and its methods as appropriate for one kind of data and philosophy and theology for another.
Since any god's interaction with nature must by definition ultimately be within nature, science cannot be expected to tell us anything of god, but only of matter and energy. If you hold that all there is is matter and energy, then the religious/spiritual discussion is a fait accompli based on that unproved assumption about reality. Further, human rationalism is jettisoned as a reliable tool for accessing truth.
Well then, let's back up and talk about the assumptions that methodological naturalism share in common with religious faith.
As I said, as a scientific realist, I take it as demonstrated that the products of science can be said to actually exist.
This does not mean that everything science has said to exist does in fact exist, or that every theory or explanation is accurate, nor even that we will not revise theories that we feel very confident about.
But it is not an all-or-nothing proposition. The sun exists, life evolved, the universe is old. We may learn new things, even shocking things about all of these things, but still...
Everything I believe about the natural world can be rediscovered from scratch (given a mindset, language and culture in which these kind of ideas can be explored).
Everything I believe about the natural world can be independently verified (given a mindset, language and culture in which these kind of ideas are meaningful).
On the other hand, what I have with religion is first a feeling, a sense of Other. Then I have a community and tradition that explains what that sense means. Or perhaps I only have community and tradition. Or even just tradition.
I also have no agreement as to what my sense means. The explanation that goes along with my sense varies from culture to culture, place to place, time to time. The explanations are often contradictory, and often mutually dismissive. Ultimately, I have to make up my own mind (within the limits of the explanations available to me, and the limitations imposed on me by language, upbringing and culture).
In what sense are these two approaches to knowing the same?
I don't think you meant to suggest we should compare these alternate epistemologies based on which one has been more widely used and accepted or which has undergone fewer upsets or upheavals in terms of fundamental assumptions. As I'm sure you're aware, the overwhelming majority of humanity is religious - essentially every human civilization that has ever existed. Whereas relatively few have been based on a scientific epistemology. Further, while essentially none of the early findings of science are accepted as valid today, practically all of the fundamental assumptions of religion are still accepted by the vast majority of their adherents today with little revision. Finally, contrary to your assertion, history demonstrates that science doesn't produce the correct results initially - rather, it has taken hundreds of years of revision, update, overthrow, and revolution to get us to our current theories and postulates. If you want to know what happens when you start with only the things you list, you need to read some Babylonian history and determine then how reliable an epistemology science is on its own merit without thousands of years of accretion.
Again, I don't think this means science doesn't produce valid results in many cases and is not a useful tool for interpreting physical data and predicting physical phenomena. But if you press the point, you actually see, practically, that I would be generous to accede equal footing to science as compared to religion, according to the premises you laid out.
Jeff, methodological naturalism has only been used as the basis for science for a few hundred years. Before that, science assumed that religious revelation was a firm foundation for science. For example, consider Newton's alchemical works, or his calculation of the date of the end of the world.
Almost all of the scientific discoveries that transformed our world (for good and ill) have been produced in a few hundred years, and only after rejecting religious explanations.
But I was trying to mark a distinction. The whole world believes in God because we seem to have an innate religious capacity, and because intuition and revelation provide answers.
Metholodolgical naturalism is rare because it takes a willingness to suspend religious answers. Consider "creation science," and the way these folks suppress, ignore and distort evidence to reach the "revealed" answer. Science is rare, probably precisely because the whole world has accepted the religious answer.
Now what was is the similarity in the foundations of the two entomologies again?
Post a Comment