Last month in these pages, Jason Rosenhouse wrote about reconciling science and religion. In his concluding paragraph he said,
Many Christians have resolved [this issue] to their own satisfaction. The literature defending "theistic evolution" is large and erudite. I can understand, though, why so many people are not impressed with such efforts... They seem like so much armchair philosophy, as though the writer thinks the task of reconciliation is accomplished when a logically possible scenario containing both God and evolution, no matter how implausible, is produced.
On the other side, many religious people tend to think of science as essentially religious in nature. These folks think believing in evolution (say) requires faith just like believing in Jesus Christ (say) requires faith. But that's just not true, unless one stretches the word "faith" until it means nothing at all.
Both sides, it seems, are trapped within their native categories. Many scientists think religion is just science done badly, and many religious people think science is basically a religion.
But science and religion have different languages. They use them differently and for different ends. The cultural divide is deep. This is not to say that science and religion have nothing to say to one another; after all, we live in one world. But careful translation is required. And even then, there are no perfect translations.
But there are plenty of horrible ones. During my time as the chair of a college physics department I directed a search for a new faculty member. And, to my surprise, some foreign applicants simply ran their CV's through online translators before sending them to me. The result was comical. A translation had occurred, but one could not discern -- at all -- the original intent of perhaps three out of four sentences. The applications were nearly pure nonsense.
Often, when I read or hear scientists on religion or religious believers on science, I get the sense that a similar kind of flatfooted one-to-one translation is lurking somewhere behind the words. Truly bilingual people are hard to find, perhaps because the two languages, and the perspectives that inspire them, are so different.
Science's categories are products of its frontal vision. They are (relatively) well-defined. And science progresses by narrowing its focus, by dividing the world into parts. It puts those parts back together, to be sure, but it never takes its eye off distinctions.
On the other hand, theology's categories are (relatively) poorly-defined, its vision anything but frontal. We cannot address God directly, but always obliquely, always indirectly. The language of theology reflects its object's shifting presence in our lives: glancing, peripheral. That's just the nature of the thing: Once you nail it down, it's dead. Or, as a friend of mine once put it, "Any box you put God in becomes a casket."
A story may help illustrate. As an astronomy professor I spent many nights under the sky with my students, pointing out stars and planets and other cosmic doodads. Often the students would strain, trying to see dim stars I could see easily. This is not because they were blind or my vision was excellent, but because there's a trick to it. To see a dim star you can't look straight at it. But once you relax and look a little to the side of it, it pops clearly into view. Of course once this happens you reflexively focus on it again and it disappears. You must relax your eyes and learn to trust your peripheral vision. You almost have to stop trying. It's very frustrating to novice skygazers, who have grown up believing that the best way to see something is always to look at it.
It's just not so, and the language of theology is grounded largely in peripheral vision. It is not poetry exactly, but it's more like poetry than anything else. It can't be forced, it can't be manipulated, and it's anything but explicit. Meanwhile, science clips along with its direct, fact-filled, straightforward prose. Science's accessibility is its great gift, but not all knowledge is like this.
A good translator invites science and religion to the table and seeks common ground. This requires social savvy as well as knowledge of the relevant perspectives and languages, because this is not merely an intellectual problem; it's also an identity problem. The translator's hardest job may be getting the strangers to look each other in the eye, to see each other as human, which of course means to consider a reality outside their own. Then and only then can specific language problems be addressed.
It's not an impossible task, but it sure isn't easy either. It's enough to make one hope for a new language, a lingua franca that can bridge the chasm between science and religion. Just a dream? I don't know, but for today at least, here's my advice on how to reconcile this pair: with patience, sensitivity, and a really good translator.
Follow Paul Wallace on Twitter: www.twitter.com/psnt_net
Steven Newton: Tennessee Volunteers for Creationism
Relationship between religion and science - Wikipedia, the free ...
From this premise alone we cannot expect a fair dialog from Wallace “with patience, sensitivity, and a really good translator” as he so contradictorily finalizes in the last sentence of his article.
No educator has the right to force Humanism on anyone. Science and Intelligent Design - Creationism can be taught side by side. A student has the right to decide for themselves what is more fulfilling for the soul than what some limited human with a degree behind their name demands of them or intimidates.
This is AMERICA…..not the Soviet Union !
Not in a science class, they can't. Creationism has zero evidence backing it up. Since it hinges on a supernatural "creator", it won't ever be considered seriously by scientists, since science, by definition, only considers natural causes for natural events. There's no way to use science to test for anything that exists outside of our universe.
Evolution, in contrast, has abundant evidence in the form of observations and experiments (as well as the fossil record). Evidence for evolution has been arrived at through the use of the scientific method. As such, it holds great explanatory power.
Plus--since creationism is a religious concept, teaching it in public school science classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Evolution is not science either. Teach SCIENCE…..not evolution.
Evolution cannot stand up to what pure science demands in its criterion for authenticity. Since many secular teachings of evolution are based on theory, supernatural explanations should not be excluded as an alternative. Scientific work, in this context, is close-minded as it is predicated on a philosophical and theoretical framework of a scientific school or discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations, are formulated.... including the experiments performed in support of them. The the only "great explanatory power" that EVOLUTION holds [not science per se] is founded on theory and generalizations.
Also, you are correct saying that “religion should not be taught in a science class”. Evolution is the religion of Humanism….yes, it IS a religion ! Get informed.
Secular Humanists and Humanistic courts have admitted that Humanism is a religion.
Why they now claim Humanism is not a religion is to avoid problems under the "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court refers to the important 1957 case of Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia (101 U.S. App. D.C. 371) in its holding that Secular Humanism is a non-theistic religion within the meaning of the First Amendment.
In 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that Secular Humanism was a religion. Nevertheless, many Humanists deny the significance of the Court's assertion and violate the First Amendment by teaching Humanism in public schools exclusively.
Many modern humans, seem obsessed by the need for permanence. Their overriding focus is on creating stability, 'unchanging sameness'. Yet humankind is faced with daily evidence that the world is just the opposite. Constant change is the norm, instability, impermanence, 'consistent inconsistency'.
For those who can not accept the reality of constant fluidity, there are numerous and varied religions to provide a structural illusion of permanence as a defence against fear and despair.
Science is a way to embrace the reality of constant change and impermanence. Questions,theories, more questions and more theories work slowly in the direction of a more complete understanding of the world/universe we all live in.
Religion fears Science because the comfort zone provided by the illusion of stability is threatened.
Science fears Religion because the promoted stability is seen as a stagnation of thought and threatens the further questioning and search for understanding.
Two things need to happen and I suspect, will happen sooner or later.
First, religions will have to come to grips with the fact that they have answers for a very limited set of questions.
Second, scientists will have to accept that they may very well, never have all the answers.
This is one of the first articles I've read on the subject that I think really gets it right--it's the lack of a lingua franca that prevents us from bridging the gap between science and religion.
I have studied both religion and science, and while I am hardly an expert on bridging the gap between the two, I at least have a working knowledge of the language of science and the language of religion. They are just simply not the same, and my ears burn when I hear them misapplied.
I am so thrilled that we are talking more about finding that bridge (that search was my primary goal in studying both subjects), but too often I leave the conversation frustrated because it seems that it is dominated by those who are on either pole--well-read in one or the other but not both--and few seem truly interested in stepping out of their comfort zone and trying to really understand what the other is saying.
I think the heart of the problem stems from our feeling that the sort of rigorous scientific "flattening" of studying a subject should be applied to religious testimonies as well. What I mean by "flattening" is that we should approach all scientific inquiry with as little subjectivity as possible. In other words, we cannot be apologists for one result or another...
That doesn't mean we can't investigate with some awe at what we are examining, but we can't let our expectations taint the results. I will say that religious scholarship should also require this kind of objectivity. We can't look at a text of scripture in its original Hebrew and ignore the real meaning of the word, replacing it with one that fits our own theology instead. I do think that the bridge between religious and scientific scholarship is relatively easier to build than the bridge between science and religious (spiritual) experience. (But that hardly means it's easy! It just means the language and processes can be applied similarly.)
For those who are apologists, that kind of scientific objectivity simply should not be applied to personal religious experience, whether as individuals or as a community. The first chapters of Genesis are a perfect example. Trying to "prove" the historical existence of a literal Garden of Eden and a literal Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil flattens a story that had a depth of meaning to its original hearers that transcended mere history. (Please, let’s not forget these original hearers! Their ears were the ones these stories were meant for.)
Of course, we can (and do) argue what truth there is to the story, but that argument should be about religious and not scientific/historical truths...
That is, it is fair to ask of it, "What does this say about the meaning of human experience? What does it say about God? How does it describe God? Are these descriptions accurate? Is there a God, and if so, does the story accurately reflect the relationship between God and creation?"
But what is not fair is to ask, "Where was the Garden located? When was it there? What was the genetic code of Adam, or Eve?" These are not the best questions to ask of the text, and they are ones that have only been asked since the dawn of the Enlightenment and the birth of true scientific rigor. It's not at all surprising, and I rather like that we are testing out our ability to reason in such a way, but we must move beyond it at some point to ask whether there is truth on another level than an historical one. This is a criticism I have of both believers and non-believers, the inability to move beyond the literal questions and move on toward the more contemplative ones.
Anyway, the point being that we can’t expect our examination of religion to match that of science, and vice versa. I think when we make our next big intellectual jump, it will be when we can find a common ground—a common language—between the varieties of human experience, both scientific/historical and spiritual.
In my experience, most Christians aren't willing to even consider that JC hasn't been objectively proven to have been an actual person and the gospels not proven to be history. Faith doesn't seem to enter into it much except for relatively small doctrinary, miraculous events.
Jason rejects things like Gould's NOMA out of hand. Atheists like Jason write as though they believe humans are capable of making much broader and deeper objective observations than we are actually capable of. Its not just that they believe that only objective observation can produce knowledge, but that they don't believe that anything else is necessary. The "gaps" will always be filled promptly. As a scientist, the one thing that amazes me about science is how little we know. I find it easy to accept that there's a much much deeper universe full of things we'll never be capable of understanding.
It seems as though you are chastising Christians for lack of "objectivity", and by the same token chastising atheists for too much "objectivity". I would agree that it is human nature to pretend to be smarter than we actually are, and that we are capable of greater insights than are actually demonstrable.
And, "yes" the layman, especially atheists, believe that science has the ability to answer questions where there is no discernable discourse or knowledge. I have tried many times to explain to people, especially atheists, that the greater knowledge a person has of science the greater awareness that a person has that science is as abstract as religion. And, that both endeavors require "faith". Albeit, the faith only differs by the standards by which it is judged.
I think one of the greatest accomplishments would be the recognition that both fields, (i.e., religion and science), is something in which mankind has a vested interest.
Once upon a time you could use the phrase "faith in science" and everyone would understand the metaphor. Unfortunately, now a days its code used by the anti-science education movement to assert that bias is the only thing keeping 98% of scientists from accepting "alternative science". "Faith" doesn't strictly apply to conclusions that can, and often are, thrown out the window within a year. Even Reform Judaism doesn't work that fast. Last year non-DNA encoded changes in protein amino acid sequence and function was science. Now its in severe doubt. At this moment siRNA from plants affecting mammalian metabolism is science. Will it still be science next year? Only experiments and objective observation, and our ability to interpret those, will determine that.
"Faith" in the scientific community isn't the same thing as faith in God. "Trust in their authority" is closer, and that trust is missing from about half the population. So as a metaphor "faith" is problematic when referring to science.
"The main reason religion needs to be privatized is that, in political [and scientific] discussion with those outside the relevant religious community, it is a conversation-stopper” (Richard Rorty).
Note that this is basic scientific literacy. That Paul Wallace as a scientist agreed with you rather than challenging you on this is positively shocking.
Science or reasoning tries to understand-‘what is happening’.
Spirituality is to understand-‘your relationship to what is happening’.
http://sites.google.com/site/yvchawla/fusion
Y V Chawla
I don't know of many scientists that think of religion as science, let alone science done badly.
`Abdu'l-Bahá on Science and Religion
Bahá'u'lláh has declared that religion must be in accord with science and reason. If it does not correspond with scientific principles and the processes of reason, it is superstition. For God has endowed us with faculties by which we may comprehend the realities of things, contemplate reality itself. If religion is opposed to reason and science, faith is impossible; and when faith and confidence in the divine religion are not manifest in the heart, there can be no spiritual attainment.
Abdu'l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace (Wilmette: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1922. 2nd edition 1982, p. 298-99.
http://info.bahai.org/article-1-5-3-1.html#1
This is "why" I use the term "cognitve faith" as being a prerequisite for good scientific inquiry. A scientist must assume with faith that certain immutable laws within the universe will remain constant. And, as a person's knowledge of science increases there is a direct correlation with a decrease in certainty about all things.
I know of no scientists, who wake up every morning, with the goal of proving or disproving God. They are either reconciled through atheism, agnosticism, or religion. However, "village atheists" have no other goal than to disprove God. Now, that's a real lifetime of achievement. Spending their entire lives arguing about someone or something whom they don't believe exists.
To an atheist, there is no need to disprove any God/s as no God/s have been proven to exist. There simply is no evidence that they exist and therefore have no reason to believe in one/any.
However, I can see how you would come to your conclusion mainly due to the atheists attempting to explain their position on God/s to those that do believe... and it can come across as we are trying to disprove the existence. Yet, in reality... there just is no need to disprove what has not been proven.
"Not been proven"? By whose standard or requirement of proof? There is simply no evidence that God does not exist either. Why should the burden of proof be placed upon those who believe any more than those who don't?
Surely, as an atheist you understand that for you there can be no absolute anything. Whether, it is absolute morals, justice, or truth. Only a belief in God renders the term valid. So, you can't even say that you believe "absolutely" there is no God.
What evidence do you require of God for belief? Can you prove to me that you don't have a soul? Can you prove to me that you do have a soul? Do you believe that there is life somewhere else in the universe?
as far as I know scientests do not assume this. They have evidence to support the unchanging state of the laws. Basically Newton discovered his laws centuries ago, and they still work today. Einsteins principles from decades ago still work. All of the scientific laws confirmed in their own time t using experimentation and evidence still work today, at least to the accuracy they worked back then. So we have evidence that the laws don't change. We don't assume that.
And very few atheists actually have the goal of getting rid of/disproving God. They simply state their opinion and why they believe it when a religious person brings it up.
Religion looks at spiritual phenomena and pretends to know why.
To date, there is no testable hypothesis that is even remotely promising.
Hence, science and religion will not be reconciled.
Why would god not wish its presence to be known through a "test"? It would overcome a lot of objections that currently and have always existed. It also argues against things like Noah's flood, Jesus's life and many miracles where religions claim god very purposely wants his actions to be understood by the world's population.
The fact that you choose to insult the intelligence of people that choose not to believe in your god says much more about you than anyone else.
PART 1 OF 2
"Then, you want no one to die and every one healed"
Well it would certainly be an improvement.
"How are you going to answer God when He asks you by what authority do you wish to subject Him to a test"
You gave me a brain, did you really expect me to apply it to everything but you? I mean you told us that you would heal people that were prayed for, but when we tried to confirm this, in order that we might convert non-believers we found it to be false. If you had merely kept your promises regardless of whether people were watching I would have believed in you. So why did you stop helping when we watched? do you enjoy the thought of people like me suffering forever? And what about all of the other religions that make very similar claims with equally little evidence? on what grounds did you want me to accept Christianity over them?