1. Science and Belief: Do We Have To Choose? Dr. Taede A. Smedes

2. Introduction 2

3. Ian Barbour (1923-2013) 3

4. 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. 4

5. 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 5

6. 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) 6

7. 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. 7

8. 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.” 8

9. 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). 9

10. 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). 10

11. Dialogue There are specific topics which science and religion can have a conversation about. 11

12. 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 parallels Thomas Kuhn: paradigms (science e.g. Newtonian and Einsteinian). (theology e.g. Incarnational theology and Trinitarian). Michael Polanyi: scientific knowledge in science and religion. 12

13. 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. 13

14. Integration An integration between the content of theology and the content of science. A direct relation between theological doctrines and particular scientific theories. Unity. 14

15. 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). 15

16. 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) 16

17. 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. 17

18. 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… 18

19. Where does the conflict come from? Misunderstandings: -Nature of science: -“scientism”: overstated faith in what science can do 19

20. 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 20

21. Where does the conflict come from? Misunderstandings: -Nature of God & religion -Category 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. 21

22. 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). 22

23. 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) 23

24. 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) 24

25. 25

26. Where does the conflict come from? (answer:) By turning religion into a (pseudo-)scientific explanation! 26

27. Science and belief: Do we have to choose? (answer:) Only if religion is turned into a (pseudo-)scientific explanation! 27

28. Science and belief: Do we have to choose? (answer:) Only if religion is turned into a (pseudo-)scientific explanation… (…which I think is wrong!) 28

29. 29

30. 30

31. Science and religion: same world, different aspects 31

32. 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. 32

33. Science and religion: same world, different aspects 33

34. Science and religion: same world, different aspects 34

35. Science and religion: same world, different aspects 35

36. Science and religion: same world, different aspects 36

37. 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