Wednesday, April 13, 2005
A Discussion of Science, Faith, and Philosophy
This post is one of the ones that is catching up with some great stuff I could not get to while I was traveling last week. In this case it is three posts done by some of the best on the interface of science, faith and philosophy.
Jollyblogger and Allthings2all both comment on a book called, The Soul of Science. Actually, Catez is drawing comments from David's review of the book. The book and the reviewers/commenters attempt to reconcile the apparent 'battle' between science and faith. Great reads all.
Evangelical Outpost comes at essentially the same topic from an entirely different direction and uses some recent work in cognition to demonstrate how the recent Terri Schiavo debate cannot possibly be limited to being a purely "scientific discussion."
I have written on the topic several times. This post and this post on the matter have been very well received.
I have to confess that I find the topic both fascinating and frustrating. Fascinating in the sense that it is where I live (I have a graduate degree in chemistry and almost got one from seminary) and frustrating in that it is just not that difficult a reconciliation for me, but seems to be for so many people.
Amongst prominent Christian bloggers, Allthings2all is in a similar position. A Physicist's Perspective also sits in this position. I also have a few friends that are persons of strong faith, and have some scientific achievement, but it is a pretty small club. However, of everyone I know or read in this position, the interface is not nearly so problematic as it is for those who are not in the position.
Does this fact make those of us that do occupy such a position some how far more wise, or smart than those that do not? I cannot speak for the others, some of them have wisdom I cherish greatly, but for myself, I can answer unequivocally -- NO!. My work in science will never reach the level of a Nobel, or even the Priestly Medal. In the Christian realm it is not like I have hundreds of devoted disciples seeking my wisdom; I have four high school kids in a Wednesday night Bible study, and a highly variable blog readership. Nope, I'm nothing very special.
I for one think the problem is not so hard for me simply because I understand both areas of study well enough to know their limitations. I do not try to stretch either area of thought and understanding beyond what it is intended to address.
That statement belies something that I think is very worthy of discussion -- the effects of specialization. As the book Jollyblogger reviews points out, Christianity gave root to the idea of a mechanistic universe which gave rise to modern science. But when that happened, what we knew about how the mechanical universe worked was knowable by one person. Such is not the case anymore. Furthermore, one cannot know all of even a given field. Many is the biochemist that would be hard pressed to teach an undergrad course in physical chemistry, don't get me wrong, they took it at some point, but they have left it very far behind. This necessary demand for specialization tends to give one a very myopic world view. It is from such "intellectual myopia" that I believe that the perceived conflict between science and faith arises.
And yet, in this day and age, such specialization is necessary for great achievement in a field. So, my question is this, how do we maintain such a level of human achievement and still avoid the intellectual myopia?
I think we start by dropping the pretense of a conflict. Further, I think this pretense should be dropped unilaterally by those on the faith side of things. People of faith need to quit debating science and start embracing it. That does not mean we accept it when someone draws a conclusion beyond the limits of a given scientific discovery or theory (e.g. evolution proves there is no God). But it does mean that we stop poo-pooing a scientific idea simply because at first glance it conflicts with some belief.
Maybe the church should be sponsoring scientific symposia?
Jollyblogger and Allthings2all both comment on a book called, The Soul of Science. Actually, Catez is drawing comments from David's review of the book. The book and the reviewers/commenters attempt to reconcile the apparent 'battle' between science and faith. Great reads all.
Evangelical Outpost comes at essentially the same topic from an entirely different direction and uses some recent work in cognition to demonstrate how the recent Terri Schiavo debate cannot possibly be limited to being a purely "scientific discussion."
I have written on the topic several times. This post and this post on the matter have been very well received.
I have to confess that I find the topic both fascinating and frustrating. Fascinating in the sense that it is where I live (I have a graduate degree in chemistry and almost got one from seminary) and frustrating in that it is just not that difficult a reconciliation for me, but seems to be for so many people.
Amongst prominent Christian bloggers, Allthings2all is in a similar position. A Physicist's Perspective also sits in this position. I also have a few friends that are persons of strong faith, and have some scientific achievement, but it is a pretty small club. However, of everyone I know or read in this position, the interface is not nearly so problematic as it is for those who are not in the position.
Does this fact make those of us that do occupy such a position some how far more wise, or smart than those that do not? I cannot speak for the others, some of them have wisdom I cherish greatly, but for myself, I can answer unequivocally -- NO!. My work in science will never reach the level of a Nobel, or even the Priestly Medal. In the Christian realm it is not like I have hundreds of devoted disciples seeking my wisdom; I have four high school kids in a Wednesday night Bible study, and a highly variable blog readership. Nope, I'm nothing very special.
I for one think the problem is not so hard for me simply because I understand both areas of study well enough to know their limitations. I do not try to stretch either area of thought and understanding beyond what it is intended to address.
That statement belies something that I think is very worthy of discussion -- the effects of specialization. As the book Jollyblogger reviews points out, Christianity gave root to the idea of a mechanistic universe which gave rise to modern science. But when that happened, what we knew about how the mechanical universe worked was knowable by one person. Such is not the case anymore. Furthermore, one cannot know all of even a given field. Many is the biochemist that would be hard pressed to teach an undergrad course in physical chemistry, don't get me wrong, they took it at some point, but they have left it very far behind. This necessary demand for specialization tends to give one a very myopic world view. It is from such "intellectual myopia" that I believe that the perceived conflict between science and faith arises.
And yet, in this day and age, such specialization is necessary for great achievement in a field. So, my question is this, how do we maintain such a level of human achievement and still avoid the intellectual myopia?
I think we start by dropping the pretense of a conflict. Further, I think this pretense should be dropped unilaterally by those on the faith side of things. People of faith need to quit debating science and start embracing it. That does not mean we accept it when someone draws a conclusion beyond the limits of a given scientific discovery or theory (e.g. evolution proves there is no God). But it does mean that we stop poo-pooing a scientific idea simply because at first glance it conflicts with some belief.
Maybe the church should be sponsoring scientific symposia?
