Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
What hath Einstein to do with Jerusalem?

What hath Einstein to do with Jerusalem?

Last updated on: April 19, 2010 at 11:57 am by Benjamin Chicka

What hath Einstein to do with Jerusalem? 2010-04-19T11:57:34+00:00 Benjamin Chicka

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

If you have decided to follow these weekly posts on science and religion then you probably take it for granted that a valuable interface exists between scientific knowledge and theological thinking. However, things are more complicated than such a simple affirmation. While current debates have moved beyond this issue, the modern version of the field was initially dominated by different typologies picturing the possible relations between science and religion. Before jumping into the specific debates I laid out last week, I believe it is necessary to understand why and how the two disciplines can be related. Besides, for those completely new to science and religion, I wouldn’t be doing a very good job if I failed to introduce this classic issue. It is also worth noting that those interested in comparative theology as well as science and religion might find a renewed focus on typology to be a very relevant matter.

I’ve chosen Ian G. Barbour for this brief excursion. He is famous for developing the following categories that come out of his book Religion and Science which everyone should read. The internal problems to each approach that I mention also come from him. If you are already familiar with Barbour or find his breakdown too simple, Religion and Science: History, Method, Dialogue edited by W. Mark Richardson and Wesley J. Wildman is an excellent resource where many big names in the field who generally fall within Barbour’s four-part typology offer more nuanced breakdowns of their specific views.

Conflict

Religion and science can be understood as locked in eternal conflict. Imagine two books full of completely different claims about the facts of the world that result in two groups with incommensurable understandings about reality. One book promotes the view that material reality is all that exists. The other book adheres to the inerrancy of the Bible and its literal interpretation. It is as if the author of one book read the other and felt driven to take the opposite view of every sentence that was read. Science has either made all religion obsolete or religion is the judge of all true science.

This sense of ongoing warfare between science and religion has been infamously handed down to us by what is sometimes called the “Draper-White Thesis.” John Draper published History of the Conflict between Religion and Science in 1874 followed by Andrew White’s History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom in 1896. These titles are self-explanatory, though the content backing them up is no longer widely accepted. The problem is that this conflict thesis ignores both real philosophical issues raised by scientific activity (and they do not have to be of the religious variety) and Biblical reinterpretations among traditional and liberal religious scholars.

Independence

The independence model builds off the premise of the conflict model by agreeing that science and religion are completely different and then simply eliminates the possibility of any contact between them. Science and religion deal with different subject-matter and have developed different languages for talking about empirical regularities or for eliciting moral principles and emotions. And because they have nothing in common, science and religion can coexist. This thesis has been most famously advanced by Stephen Jay Gould’s idea of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) which he fully fleshed out in Rock of Ages. Something like this view also exists among philosophers of religion who use the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein.

There are two major problems with this view. First, these different languages would still relate to a common and publically accessible world. If different groups looking at that common world must still use different languages, then the second problem becomes clear. Such a picture cannot be what most religious people mean by reality. Religious adherents throughout time have understood their beliefs to be truths about reality rather than emotional outbursts or imaginative stories. However, if scientific explanations about the origin of the universe, life, and the evolutionary roots of religious ideas are complete, then the role of heartwarming fiction is the only one left for religious beliefs. They are not the language of a supernatural realm science cannot investigate, but are idle ramblings about values that are not based on anything real. It then seems easy to go one step further and suggest religions be eliminated because they are pointless.

Dialogue

Building off of the problems with the conflict and independence models, the dialogue model emphasizes certain similarities in method while noting that the differences between science and religion must be clarified for any chance of mutual transformation. Methodologically, both science and religion are theory-laden in the sense that their activities are propelled by existing beliefs and commitments of community members. Dialogue could then be about learning similarities and differences on this methodological level. But doing so would likely reveal that presuppositions held by each member of the dialogue lead to limit questions they are unable to answer alone. Discovering the limits of one discipline would reveal what it can learn from another. Here is how this approach can look in practice: Philip Clayton debating Daniel Dennett.

Here is my assessment of the debate.

Integration

This model has probably been one of the most dominant through history. Its exemplars can be found among the natural theologians who argue from certain features of the world that seem designed to their ultimate designer. William Paley is probably the most famous example due to his watchmaker analogy: Just as the inner workings of a watch are designed to work together and obviously could not have arranged themselves randomly, the universe, its laws, and life within the universe were created by a designer that is God. This argument waned after philosopher such as David Hume claimed it assumes more than anyone can know by stretching common experiences beyond their bounds with improper analogies. For example, many people have experienced watches and watchmakers, but no one has ever experienced a universe maker in action. As a result, no one knows if the analogy is really valid. However, the intelligent design movement being championed by people like Michael Behe has given the design argument a public reemergence even though prominent theologians reject it as science.

Other strong forms of the integration thesis promote a complete systematic synthesis between science and religion through the use of one metaphysical system. The best philosophical representation of such a synthesis is probably Alfred North Whitehead’s process philosophy. Ideally, if successful, the categories of the metaphysical system would apply to every phenomenon found in scientific research and religious experience. While the prospect for complete agreement between religion and science is alluring, few experts in the field would fall into this camp. Adopting one metaphysical system for exhaustively describing science and religion is a daunting task which has been attempted and failed many times throughout history. Such failures have led many theologians away from trying again. Furthermore, just like the independence model can go against practical beliefs about the unity of truth and the possibility for critical conversation and debate, the integration thesis can make science and religion look like the same thing. Such a prospect will equally offend the common-sense of many people. As a result, a certain amount of independence with openness for critical dialogue has been more commonly adopted.

So all these approaches have their problems and any sense of one being the winner over the others is far from being decided. Does that mean all is hopeless? Should I stop posting about science and religion? I hope not. I think the lesson is that engaging the field of science and religion is an adventure, one with a destination that cannot be decided beforehand. The field is about engaging and learning from a constantly changing world. Those changes have a tendency to reveal premature conclusions about the incommensurability or perfect integration of science and religion to be just that, early wishes rather than conclusions. And I know I will always welcome such corrections to any of my own views.

Science versus Religion

Typology

Previous Post

April 16, 2010

A Priest Speaks Out

Next Post

April 19, 2010 What's Emerging in the Church?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Advent Author Interviews Battle Over the Body and Blood of Christ Bearing Beauty Book Reviews Christian Education christian spirituallity christianity Christmas Church Church Leadership Contemplation Creation Care Death and Dying Death Penalty Disruptive Change Disruptors Series Easter Education Evolution and Faith Future of Progressive Christianity Gun Violence Health & Wellness Holy Week Interfaith Israel-Palestine Leading Differently Lent LGBTQ Living with Cancer Meditations on the Cross Mental Illness millennials Mimetic Mondays Monday Meditations Movie Reviews New Monasticism Pando Populus Parenting Patheos 10+1 Q&A Series PC(USA) Politics Pop Culture Practical Theology Series Prayer progressive christian Race Relations Reformation religion Religion and Politics Religion in America Rethink Church Social Justice Spirituality Spirituality of the Body Stump a Scholar Technology and Faith Thanksgiving Theodicy Trust Me Church Uncategorized Why I'm Still Christian Youth Ministry

Select a Month December 2025 April 2025 January 2025 September 2023 September 2022 May 2022 February 2022 January 2022 November 2021 October 2021 May 2021 February 2021 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 June 2020 May 2020 March 2020 June 2019 March 2019 January 2019 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

True or False: Paul wrote to Titus about overseers needing to be hospitable and able to teach.

Select your answer to see how you score.

FALSE TRUE