withallyourmind.net

This post is part of an ongoing series on the relationship of science and religion. Today, I briefly discuss the birth of modern science.

First of all, it is important to realize that the Scientific Revolution was birthed in an incubator of the Christian worldview. Those famous and prominent scientists of the 17th century were for the most part profoundly religious men. It is not coincidental that this environment bathed with the principles of Christianity like those delineated by Augustine gave rise to modern science. Some have argued that the Christian worldview was necessary to the rise of science. Greek thought also held that the universe was ordered, however, this order was felt to be necessary, hence one can deduce its structure from first premises, making experimentation and observation of lesser importance. In contrast, Christian teaching held that the universe is contingent. Science could not get started without the Christian perspective that the cosmos was created by a God of order and reason who gave us reliable rational capabilities by which to gain knowledge of nature. Kepler stated:

Those laws (of the universe) are within the grasp of the human mind; God wanted us to recognize them by creating us after his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts.

One of those prominent scientists whose Christianity informed his science was Robert Boyle, who is best known for the gas law named after him. He was deeply religious. Lawrence Principe claims:

He viewed the role of the natural philosopher – what we would call today scientist – as a priest of nature; that’s his term… He saw the study of the natural world as an inherently religious activity. The role of the natural philosopher was to study the world and to gather up from the word ways in which to praise the creator. Like the priest sacrificing in the temple, the scientist in the world is the conduit for the silent hymns and prayers of the natural world to God.

This mindset of Boyle is linked, obviously, to the Two Books approach of Augustine. By studying the natural world, one learns of God. In an essay entitled “The Book of Nature”, he extolled the practice of natural studies and their positive effect on religious devotion. He felt natural philosophy was especially appropriate to carry out on Sundays for this reason. Combating the belief that scientific study is deleterious to Christianity, he wrote The Christian Virtuoso near the end of his life to promote the concept that scientific study and understanding leads us to more profoundly appreciate our Creator.

Next, more on early modern science.

At this point in our discussion of the relationship of science and religion, it might be important to briefly discuss the role of reason in religion. There are some who are of the opinion that reason has no role in religion. Augustine certainly would not have agreed. He stated:

Far be it from God to hate in us the faculty by which he made us superior to all other living things. And may it ever be far from us to believe in such a way that we do not accept or seek out reason. For we would not even be able to believe unless we had a soul that was endowed with reason.

Recta fides (right faith) requires the proper exercise of reason. Recta ratio (right reason) requires the proper exercise of faith. Augustine put it this way:

Understand so that you believe and believe so that you may understand.

So, faith and reason continually cooperate to help us properly interpret both the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature. Pope John Paul II issued an encyclical in 1998 entitled Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason). In this document, he reiterates much of that contained in Augustine’s writings. Pope John Paul called faith and reason…

… the two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth.

In his teaching, he rejects fideism which is a sort of blind adherence to statements of faith that completely rejects reason. According to the Pope:

It is an illusion that faith tied to weak reasoning might be more penetrating. On the contrary, faith then runs the grave risk of withering into myth or superstition.

So, we see that Augustine’s thesis that faith and reason cooperate as friends has been reaffirmed in the late 20th century. Next, a look at the beginnings of modern science.

In my last post, I hoped to point out that the warfare model is a fabrication of relatively recent origin. But, if religion is not really at war with science, how are they to relate?

According to Augustine, it seems science and faith are friends. Rather than undermine the efforts of the other, each provides complementary support to the other. Principe recounts four points which are foundational to a discussion of the relationship of science and religion. The first point is that there is a unity of truth. There is not one truth for science and another truth for religion. There is only one truth which is true for all disciplines of study. Augustine stated:

There is no teacher of truth but God, no matter where it comes to light.

The ramification of this statement for science and religion is this: If there are contradictory claims made by science and religion, they cannot both be correct. The conflict is only apparent and should be resolved. This resolution may not be easy, but it must be pursued. Either our understanding of scripture or of nature is incorrect, and one or the other must be adjusted.

This leads to Augustine’s second point – his doctrine of the “Two Books”. These two books are the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature. God is the author of both and does not contradict himself. Both are equally reliable as sources of truth, and will in fact lead to the one truth which matches up with reality. Some may object that this claim does not seem intuitive as conflicts arise all the time between religion and science. Augustine’s third point addresses this issue. Both books require interpretation and may be misinterpreted. Nature is not always as it seems. Our senses are not completely reliable and sometimes lead us in directions of error. We must use our reason to assist us in analyzing the book of nature and to help us reach accurate conclusions. Likewise, correctly interpreting the scriptures is not always easy. Some language is literal, some is figurative. Some passages may be allegorical. We must rationally analyze the scripture to interpret it properly. One should use what scripture tells him to inform his interpretation of nature, as well as use what nature tells him to inform his interpretation of scripture. Augustine claimed:

Interpretation of biblical passages must be informed by the current state of demonstrable knowledge.

To be ignorant of scientific knowledge was to do a disservice to Christianity.

It is a disgraceful and a dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

Although Augustine appreciated the study of both books, he did consider theology more important than natural philosophy. Secular knowledge was a handmaid whose purpose was to assist true religion. It is more important to grasp the eternal truths of religion than knowledge of the natural world.

Next, the role of reason in religion.

Having briefly discussed one model of how science and religion relate, specifically the NOMA model, I now turn to discuss the warfare model.

Since science and religion are seen to make claims about subjects which are not completely separate, does this mean one is left with the warfare model? Perhaps, but not necessarily so. Lawrence Principe makes four important claims about this model:

One, the conflict model is a fabrication of the late 19th century. Two, its origins lie with two men, John William Draper and Andrew Dixon White. Third, these men had specific political and social purposes when arguing their case. And fourth, most importantly, the historical foundations for their work are almost totally unreliable.

Principe fleshes out these four points in greater detail in his work. Draper, a strong advocate of the positivism of August Comte, placed scientific thought above all other types of thinking. Of his book, A History of the Intellectual Development of Europe, Principe states that it contains…

…some of the worst historical writing you are ever likely to come across. Historical facts are confected, causes and chronologies twisted to the authors purpose. We find interpretations made merely by declaration. We find quotations violently taken out of context and instances, quite a few of them, where Draper claims a historical writer said something that’s in fact, 180 degrees away from what he actually claimed.

Draper had a rigorous distaste of Catholicism and blamed the church for all sorts of evils, including an animosity toward science.

White, an American, published A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom in 1896. In it he claimed:

The establishment of Christianity arrested the normal development of the physical sciences for over fifteen hundred years.

Although copiously footnoted, Principe asserts that his historical accuracy and arguments which are based on that history fare little better than those of Draper. One example of the inaccuracies contained in Draper’s work is the idea that people believed the world was flat prior to Columbus. It was Draper and White who popularized this still frequently asserted, yet baseless, view. By the 5th century B.C., the Greeks had established the sphericity of the earth and had reasonably measured its circumference by the 3rd century B.C. Learned westerners were not unaware of this. White dug up perhaps the only two people from late-antiquity who espoused a flat-earth theory and claimed their view as representative. This commits the fallacy of collectivism, or the unwarranted inference of an individual’s view to represent that of a whole group.

A foundational flaw in this warfare hypothesis is the assumption that scientists and theologians resided in two distinct camps throughout history. It is also assumed that theologians imposed their will on scientists and severely limited their influence. However, Principe asserts:

Before the 19th century, scientific inquiry – better called natural philosophical inquiry at this time – was not carried out by a distinct professional class. Throughout the Middle Ages, natural philosophy was generally done in the context of theological speculation. People from before the 19th century, who we retrospectively call scientists, themselves believed that theology and religious texts, like the Bible, were relevant to their work.

Although serious philosophers of science have long seen the bankruptcy of the warfare model, many in popular culture continue to espouse this view. For example, Carl Sagan often regurgitated much of White’s viewpoint in his television program, Cosmos.

Next, How should science and religion, in fact, relate?

Now that I’ve discussed the terms used in a little more detail, let me look at one version of how science and religion relate.

So, how do science and religion relate? There are several models which have been offered to help us understand this relationship. Perhaps, the most common or widely reported one is the “warfare model.” The warfare model places science and religion in opposing camps which war against the other for supremacy. I will come back to this model a little later.

One model held by some may be called the “separate realms” model. Religion and science are said to occupy totally separate and distinct realms. Science deals with the physical world while religion deals with morality and ethics. Steven J. Gould called this model NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria). Science and religion have their own spheres of authority and never overlap; therefore, there is no possible conflict. If a conflict does appear, it does so because one has overstepped its bounds and has begun to deal with issues which are outside of its sphere of explanation. Albert Einstein seemed to promote a view similar to this one when he stated in his address on science and religion:

For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts.

There are at least two big problems with this model.

1. One problem that it ignores centuries of history in which this was not held to be the case. Science and religion have always interacted in ways inconsistent with this model. This certainly seems an attempt to place a modernist template on a subject which historically will not fit into this template.

2. The more serious difficulty with this model is that orthodox Christianity does in fact make claims about the natural world. For example, Christianity claims that the world is not eternal. In similar manner, science makes claims which overlap with those of theology.

Next, the Warfare Model.

Thomas Berg has an article entitled Secular Humanists to the Rescue at the National Review. In it he discusses the increased efforts of the Center For Inquiry, a secular humanist organization which has recently open a new public policy office in Washington, DC. The rhetoric which proceeds from these folks would be laughable, if not so destructive to productive discourse. (I have a series of posts in which I evaluate the arguments for ESCR based on naturalism of CFI’s legal director, Ronald A. Lindsay.) Berg states:

If secularists want to have a meaningful voice in the public square — and not a preposterous one — then we invite them to be attentive students of history, and with intellectual honesty to recognize that Christianity in particular has a lengthy track record of contributing to the very goals that secularists profess to be seeking: beliefs grounded in reason, an ethics sustained by reasonable moral discourse, advances in human knowledge, and the general betterment of human life.

I heard Dr. Michael Behe speak a couple of months ago at a Tampa, Florida ID event. In one of his lectures, he pointed out how much of Judge Jones’ opinion was an almost verbatim regurgitation of much of the ACLU’s proposed ‘Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law’ which was submitted to the court. Jones was hailed for his brilliant mind and understanding of the complexities of the ID issue. Some are now questioning whether he really grasped the arguments presented at all seeing how his decision simply restated the ACLU position. The ID Update has had several posts on this issue, including Jones’ (lack of ) response.

According to the Discovery Institute press release:

“Judge John Jones copied verbatim or virtually verbatim 90.9% of his 6,004-word section on whether intelligent design is science from the ACLU’s proposed ‘Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law’ submitted to him nearly a month before his ruling,” said Dr. John West, Vice President for Public Policy and Legal Affairs at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.

“Ironically, Judge Jones has been hailed as ‘an outstanding thinker’ for his ‘masterful’ ruling, and even honored by Time magazine as one of the world’s ‘most influential people’ in the category of ’scientists and thinkers,’” said West. “But Jones’ analysis of the scientific status of intelligent design contains virtually nothing written by Jones himself. This finding seriously undercuts the credibility of a central part of the ruling.”

Without collaboration, two of the other blogs we frequent have also recently addressed the relationship of science and religion. I’d encourage you to take a look at the Christian Cadre and also at Thinking Christian.

In the first post of this series I breifly introduced the topic and started defining terms. Today, a further discussion of the terms.

“Religion” is a somewhat vague term which may refer to religious practices, beliefs, or “theology”. Science and theology are similar in that they should both be understood as a set of knowledge claims and a practice for generating those claims. Theology might be defined as the intellectual, methodical study of God, the spiritual world, God’s attributes, actions, and relationship to creation. Science might be defined as the intellectual, methodical study of the natural world. As can be seen, both practices make claims about the way things really are. Science deals mostly with the natural, material world, and theology deals mostly with the spiritual world.

What about the relationship of “faith” and “reason”? Does religion operate entirely by faith and science entirely by reason? Contrary to the opinions of many, this is not the case. Both science and religion make knowledge claims which are derived from reason and faith. Reason generates knowledge claims by taking us from premises to conclusion by means of argument and logic. Faith generates knowledge claims by means of belief, although not necessarily a blind leap. Most often one has reasons which are felt to provide a basis for his faith. The dichotomy that states that religion is faith-based and science is reason-based is false. Traditional Christian theology is filled with rational arguments for Christianity, including arguments by such thinkers as Augustine and Aquinas. Science, on the other hand, must incorporate a substantial number of faith statements into its practice in order to function. For example, scientists often accept by faith that they are studying something real. They assume or believe that the natural world exists in reality. They also accept by faith the uniformity of nature. These are unproven assumptions which are accepted by “faith” in order to do science. It is quite reasonable to view good science and good theology as being quite similar in their essence, that is, both use rational arguments and unproven assumptions to produce knowledge claims.

Next, how do science and religion relate?

Part 1 of a series on the relationship of science and relgion.

The November 13, 2006 issue of Time Magazine considers the question of whether God and science are compatible. With the growth of the intelligent design movement and the renewed ardor of certain prominent atheistic scientists, this question merits our closest consideration. Time asks, “Can religion stand up to the progress of science?” In posing such a question, the implication is that science and religion are at war, or at least are reaching contradictory conclusions about reality. In describing this conflict, the article goes on to state:

Some (scientists) are radicalized enough to publicly pick an ancient scab: the idea that science and religion, far from being complementary responses to the unknown, are at utter odds – or, as Yale psychologist Paul Bloom has written bluntly, ‘Religion and science will always clash.’ The market seems flooded with books by scientists describing a caged death match between science and God – with science winning, or at least chipping away at faith’s underlying verities.

It is this supposed conflict that this paper addresses. Are science and faith, by nature, always in conflict? Is science the enemy of religion? This question has been considered by many others. I hope here to summarize some of these views and offer what I feel to be the correct understanding of the relationship of science and religion.

To begin, one must make sure to define terms. Frankly, this is where much of the problem begins. Experts have a difficult time actually defining what science and religion are. It is difficult, if not impossible, to arrive at a definition on which all will agree. Another issue to be considered is that the definitions are not at all static. What we mean by science in the 21st century may not be what was meant by the same term in the 16th century. Historian of science, Lawrence M. Principe, of John Hopkins University, uses the case of Johannes Kepler to illustrate that it is not so easy to arrive at definitions which distinguish the two. Kepler was one of the most important astronomers and mathematicians of the 17th century and is found in every physics text as the discoverer of certain laws of planetary motion. Obviously, Kepler was doing science, but he…

“…was also explicit in saying that his motivation for uncovering the laws of nature was to give glory to their creator. At one point he writes, ‘God is praised through my work in astronomy.’

As we look at Kepler, as well as others such as Isaac Newton, we find that science and faith are almost inseparably intertwined. Kepler explained:

I give you thanks, Creator and God, that you have given me this joy in thy creation, and I rejoice in the works of your hand. See I have now completed the work to which I was called… I have revealed the majesty of your works…

Next, a further discussion of terms.