Reformed Seminary, College, Free Sermons, Scholarly Resources, and Overseas Missions Opportunities |
||||||||||||||
|
[~][`]
|
(a contribution for the book Can Science
Dispense With Religion? (3rd ed.), 1.
What is your definition of science and religion?
(a) Science
Science can be defined as the systematic study of the natural world. Such study
is grounded in detailed experiments and observations of natural processes. These
are then analyzed for patterns, regularities and laws. However, science involves
much more than empirical observation and mathematical analysis. Science has also
a large, more speculative, theoretical component. For example, scientists want
to extrapolate beyond their rather limited set of observational data, in
order to draw more general conclusions about the universe. This requires various
assumptions about the nature of the universe. A common conjecture is that of the
uniformity of nature; the physical laws and processes observed here and
now are assumed to apply universally. Some of the sciences (e.g., cosmology,
geology and evolutionary biology) depend strongly upon significant
extrapolations of presently observed data back to the distant past.
Furthermore, scientists seek also to explain reality. Particular events
are explained in terms of physical laws; the physical laws themselves are
explained in terms of more fundamental physical concepts and principles, and so
on.
The basic, observational aspect of science I shall
refer to as science1; the theoretical extrapolation and explanation of
these observations I shall denote science2.
(b) Religion
Religion can be defined in various ways. Broadly, it can refer to any set of
beliefs, values and practices that form a worldview. A worldview system will
include beliefs about ultimate reality, epistemology, ontology, ethics, purpose,
and so on. Everyone has a worldview, although many people have not explicitly
formulated their worldview. I shall call religion in this broad sense
religion1.
One currently popular form of religion1 is naturalism. It strives to
interpret all of reality in terms of purely natural processes and entities. As
such, it almost always incorporates an evolutionary process wherein everything
in the universe--even man--is assumed to have evolved from primitive,
purposeless matter/energy. Consequently, man is viewed as a complex machine that
ceases to exist once his material body dies. Rational norms and ethical
standards are considered to be mere human inventions, having no objective
authority.
Naturalism often embraces a materialist metaphysics coupled with
an empiricist epistemology. Materialist reductionism is particularly common
among scientists. For example, Edward Wilson (Consilience:
The Unity of Knowledge, 1998) believes that
all truth can ultimately be acquired through the reductionist methods of natural
science. Wilson argues that all our knowledge, as well as our appreciation of
beauty and perception of right and wrong, can in principle be reduced to the
laws of physics. Likewise, Francis Crick (The Astonishing Hypothesis,
1994) asserts that all our beliefs—even our sense of personal identity, purpose
and free will--are mere illusions caused by our brain neurons. Such reductionism
stresses the objective, physical realm at the expense of virtually emptying our
subjective experiences of any genuine content.
More narrowly, religion is generally taken to mean
the belief in and worship of God. In this sense religion refers to a specific
worldview that affirms the existence of a supernatural being. Often it includes
some form of divine revelation. Such revealed knowledge may form the basis of
ethical values, knowledge of origins and eschatology, and so on. I
shall call such supernatural religion religion2.
The specific
form of religion2 that I shall be defending here is theism as formulated
in traditional Christianity. Central to the Christian
worldview is the notion of a sovereign, all-knowing, tri-personal God, Who has
revealed Himself through the Bible. This God is the creator of everything,
including logical and moral absolutes. Everything that happens unfolds in
accordance with God's eternal plan. In this divine plan man, who was created in
God's image, plays a major role serving and glorifying God. Man was created good
but, through his own choice, fell into sin. Through God's grace in Jesus Christ,
some are redeemed. After physical death, our soul lives on, to be re-united with
a renewed body on the Day of Judgment. Thereafter we receive our eternal reward. 2.
Do you see any conflict between your definitions of these two concepts? There
is no conflict between these definitions.
Much of the perceived conflict between science and
religion is due to the erroneous belief that science has no need of any
metaphysical or epistemological assumptions. It is widely believed that science
is factual, rational and objective, whereas religion is mythical, irrational and
subjective.
This myth of scientific neutrality fails to properly
distinguish between observational facts and theoretical speculations. It
overlooks the highly subjective aspects of science. We note, first, that the
same data can be explained by many different theories. For example, galactic
red-shifts can be explained in terms of the expansion of space, motion through
space, gravitational red-shifts, "tired light", and so on. As noted by Karl
Popper, Thomas Kuhn and others, scientific theories are not simply derived from
data. Rather, the construction of theories involves a large dose of creativity.
Second, the same mathematical equations can often be interpreted in many
different ways. Consider, for example, the various different interpretations of
quantum mechanics (e.g., Bohr's positivism, Bohm's neo-realism, the many-worlds
view, etc.). Third, assessing the veracity of competing theories involves the
subjective application of subjective criteria for theory selection. We may
prefer theories that are simple or beautiful but why should simple or beautiful
theories be more likely to be true? Ultimately, we construct and choose theories
that best reflect our basic beliefs about the nature of the world.
Every scientist has a worldview and the science that
he does will inevitably be informed by that worldview. This is particularly so
regarding the theorizing of science2. By comparison, science1, being at the
level of observational data, is relatively objective. Yet, even our choice of
what and how we choose to observe depends on our worldview.
In short, science is by no means worldview neutral. What is widely
perceived as a conflict between science and religion is in actuality usually a
clash between two opposing worldviews, generally naturalism versus theism.
3.
Where do you think there may be a conflict between these two?
Conflicts involving science and religion can occur in the extrapolation,
explanation and application of observational data.
A prime issue is that of epistemology. What can we
know? In opposition to empiricism, which asserts that the only valid
knowledge is sense data, Christianity asserts that God has revealed truth in the
Bible. Christianity embraces the Bible as a trustworthy source of knowledge
about God, history, the spiritual realm, moral standards, origins and
eschatology. Hence, a Christian epistemology will acknowledge Biblical data in
addition to sense data and logic.
Conflicts can involve also ontological questions
regarding the ultimate nature of reality. For example, in opposition to
materialism, Christianity takes God, a spirit, as the ultimate reality.
Christianity takes the physical universe to be a creation of God and, as such, a
mere subspace of a much richer reality that contains both matter and spirit. Further conflicts can involve causation. For example, in opposition
to naturalism, which admits only natural causes, Christianity affirms the
existence of spiritual forces that interact with the physical universe. The
universe, created by the word of God, relies upon God to sustain it in its
continued existence. Normally, God lets the universe unfold according to the
properties He as assigned to it. However, God is not bound by the natural laws
that He has set. These are merely the regular manifestations of His will. God
may sometimes act more directly, through His spiritual agents (e.g., angels) or
miracles. Hence some natural events may have direct supernatural causes. In
particular, God acts directly through the incarnation, resurrection and ultimate
return of Jesus Christ.
Moreover, in opposition to the notion that some
things (e.g., in quantum mechanics) happen by chance (i.e., without being fully
caused), Christianity maintains the full sovereignty of God. God is the primary
cause of everything. Everything that happens, happens in accordance with God's
all-encompassing plan. Everything happens for a sufficient reason, given by
God's purpose. Such conflicts, to the extent that they involve science, concern
primarily science2. At issue are generally not the observational data but
only their theoretical extrapolation and interpretation. It is often not
even specific theories (e.g., general relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.) that
are controversial but, rather, their philosophical interpretation. 4.
What have been the grounds for the development of conflict between these two? In
the popular mind, the two greatest historical conflicts between science and
religion have been those involving Galileo and Darwin.
The Galileo affair, in the early 17th
century, was a complex dispute, inflamed by politics and personalities. It was
primarily a family squabble within Christianity. Two different scientific
research programs clashed, each program supported by its own group of Christian
scientists. The central issue was the epistemological question of how to
determine absolute motion. Should the absolute frame of reference be set by
Biblical standards, by Aristotelian philosophy, by mathematical simplicity, or
by other considerations? The difficulty was that the observational data in
themselves can yield information only about relative motion. The question
of absolute motion must thus be settled by extra-scientific definitions
and considerations. As is now widely recognized, the resolution of this issue
depends largely on one's worldview assumptions.
The conflict precipitated by Darwin concerns
primarily origins. How did life, in all its manifold forms, come to be? The
dispute is not so much about observations of living things, fossils,
geological formations, etc. but how to explain how they came to be. As
such, the conflict involves questions concerning the ultimate nature of reality
(e.g., can mind be explained entirely in terms of matter?), eschatology (e.g.,
does man have a non-material soul that survives physical death?), and causation
(e.g., does the origin of life require special divine acts?). Again, a central
issue is one of epistemology: what role should divine revelation (e.g., the
Bible) play in interpreting the results of observational science1, in choosing
the theories of science2, and in informing our view of origins, etc? Here, too,
it is clear that this conflict is rooted in a clash of opposing extra-scientific
presuppositions.
5.
What has been the role of religion in the development of science in the West? In
the West, Christianity played a large role in the development of science.
Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Boyle, Newton and many other founders of science
were devout believers in the Biblical God. Their science was constructed within
the framework of a Christian worldview.
Various factors in the Christian worldview
encouraged the development of science:
1.
The Biblical conception of an omniscient and omnipotent personal God, Who made
everything in accordance with a rational plan and purpose, contributed to the
notion of a rationally structured creation.
2.
The notion of a transcendent God, Who exists separate from His creation, served
to counter the notion that the physical world, or any part of it, is sacred.
Since the entire physical world is a mere creation, it was thus a fit object of
study and transformation.
3.
Since man was made in the image of God (Gen.1:26), which included rationality
and creativity, it was deemed possible that man could discern the rational
structure of the physical universe that God had made.
4.
The cultural mandate, which appointed man to be God's steward over creation
(Gen1:28), provided the motivation for studying nature and for applying that
study towards practical ends, at the same glorifying God for His wisdom and
goodness. 6.
Can we have a religious science? We
have already noted the subjectivity and epistemic limitations of science2. Since
science2 must necessarily be based on extra-scientific values and
presuppositions, all science2 is inevitably driven by one's worldview
assumptions. Hence science certainly can--and indeed must--be religious
in the broad sense of religion1.
Can science be religious in the stricter sense of
religion2? It is evident that only on the basis of metaphysical assumption can
one rule out the possible existence of a spiritual realm, of supernatural
causation and of a reliable divine revelation. It follows that it is
possible to have a science operating within the framework of a Christian
worldview, with all the metaphysical, epistemological and ethical implications
that this entails. For example, religion2 might insist that an additional
criterion for theory selection be that of conformity with divine revelation
(e.g., the Bible). Religion2 can further serve as a moral guide, helping one to
prioritize and select research projects. Science informed by religion2 would
impact particularly questions of ontology, origins, applications and
eschatology. 7.
Can science dispense with religion?
Science certainly cannot dispense with religion1. As we have already noted,
extra-scientific presuppositions are essential for choosing research projects,
selecting theories and interpreting the results.
Can science dispense with religion in the narrower
sense? Does science need God?
Naturalists believe not. It has, however, become
clear that naturalism falls short in providing a coherent worldview framework
for science. For example, naturalism has offered no plausible explanation for
the mathematical structure of physical reality, for the existence of a rational,
causally effective human mind, or for the existence of absolute moral or
rational norms. Indeed, materialism, an essential part of most forms of
naturalism, denies the very existence of non-physical entities such as minds and
norms. Even if such non-physical entities did conceivably exist, the
naturalist’s empiricism affords him no means of gaining access to them.
Naturalism is fatally plagued by a defective
metaphysics and epistemology that have no room for moral or aesthetic values,
truth, purpose, meaning, love, goodness or beauty. Naturalism is a truncated
worldview that has no place for precisely those aspects of man that make him
human.
By undermining the reality of a purposeful self and
the possibility of objective knowledge, naturalism undermines itself. To
rationally defend materialism, one must necessarily presume the existence of
rational minds and absolute norms. Since materialism rejects such non-material
entities, it follows that the rational defense of materialism is self-refuting.
The same holds for empiricism. The empiricist's assertion--that only sense data
are valid sources of knowledge--is itself non-empirical. Hence
empiricism, too, is self-refuting. Given these lethal flaws in materialism and
empiricism, it is not surprising that naturalism has led to post-modern
skepticism.
Any viable
worldview must embrace an adequate epistemology that can transcend the stream of
mere empirical data. It must include also an adequate metaphysics that has room
for rational minds and absolute universals. A viable worldview must be able to
account for science and common sense. For example, any scientist must assume
that the universe has a law-like structure that is comprehensible to humans.
Theism,
unlike naturalism or skepticism, provides a
sufficiently rich metaphysics and epistemology that can credibly explain the
full range of reality, including particularly the nature and condition of
humanity. Theism can readily account for the rationality of the universe and our
ability to function as scientists.
In short, a scientist may profess to be an atheist,
but he can do his science only on the borrowed premises of an essentially
theistic worldview. 8.
Can one separate the domains of activity of science and religion completely? No.
As we have seen, science can function only within the parameters of a theistic
worldview. Religion2 is needed to provide a sound metaphysical basis for
science, to guide its research programs and theory selection, to interpret its
conclusions, and to make ethical applications. Science, on the other hand, can
help us in our religious quest to serve God as His earthly stewards, applying
scientific knowledge for the benefit of man and the glory of God.
***** |
|||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||
