Blogotional

John Mark Reynolds recently wrote an interesting piece on the intersection of science, religion and philosophy. It is extremely meaty and extremely good. I largely agree, but would alter the language a bit. And extended pull quote with comments:

Why is the current generation of scientists so hostile to religious thinking? Why do even some Christian scientists allow for only naturalistic explanations and methods in science? (All depends on how you define "science." I would argue that the "behavioral sciences," for example psychology, are not science at all - they are other fields of study, at best, employing the methods of science. But more on this in a minute.)

The answer is quite simple. For a long time, the philosophical foundations for science were taken for granted. Eventually they were forgotten or deemed unimportant. Christianity was often recognized as being necessary to birth modern science, but now could be discarded. Purpose and the action of any rational beings other than humans could safely be ignored. Scientists and philosophers now knew enough about the world to assume that such a decision was a safe one. (I think that could be a good definition of sin.)

This mistake was due to the success of chemistry and physics in explaining so many things in a naturalistic manner. Of course, this success was simply a continuation of the prediction that non-living things would be best explained in this manner. It is interesting to note that psychology, sociology, and some areas of biology have not had comparative success. (Therefore those fields, while worthy, are something other than "science.")

Some things may be the products of intelligence or intelligences (the mind) are not reducible to purely material or physical explanations. (AGREED!)

Eventually, scientists themselves would come to forget their own heritage in this area. A rejection of certain mistaken forms of “teleological” thinking developed in the Middle Ages, then turned into a wholesale denial of purpose, design, and intelligent agency in the cosmos. Scientists and many philosophers refused on principal to allow for a God who did things that were part of the picture. These thinkers saw the growth of naturalistic explanations as without any end. Science would eventually have a naturalistic explanation, with matter and energy in mindless motion, for everything in the cosmos. God was left with nothing to do. The attempt to squeeze him into the shrinking gaps in human scientific knowledge was futile. Better to get it over with and declare God dead. Most of the academic mainstream has gone slowly in this direction.

Certain religious thinkers, attempting to rescue cherished childhood beliefs from the “march of science,” agreed with this naturalistic methodology. It was hoped that accepting naturalism in science would allow for supernatural activity in other areas. (It indeed should) Such people forgot that science was claiming every area of the cosmos as its domain. (Such "scientists" are free to claim whatever they want, that does not make it reality. Besides, we have switched here from productive counter examples of the behavioral to examples of the almost purely physical like the operations of the cosmos.) These theistic naturalists relegated God’s actions to areas like salvation history, ethics, and life after death. God was thereby kept far distant from their day to day work in the lab. Jesus could live in their heart and help them be good, but He had nothing to say about biology. (Indeed true for some, but certainly not all Christian scientists that hold to naturalistic methodology.)

The bottom line is this, while science has indeed tried to claim everything as its domain, It is just wrong in doing so. And the fact of the matter is God did indeed create a physically, if not behaviorally predictable universe. God has much to say about human behavior, but other than His creative expression, and His sustaining power, He really chooses to say very little about the functioning of gravity. If He does, as He has on occasion, we call it a miracle.

Science does not need to be battled, it needs to be fenced in - there is a difference, and I think scientists are the bottom line. I commented above about a good definition of "sin." Bring salvation to the scientist and you will find this argument goes away. There is no reason to change the basic operations of science - it has succeeded too well for that. What we need to do is change scientists. At that point the driving force to declare God dead, which is nothing more than an expression of our sinful nature, will disappear and science will be properly bounded and function as it should.

The bottom line is this - there really is no room for God in a theory of gravitation, not because of any restraints on God, but because that is how God created the universe. But there is much room for God in a theory of human behavior because He created us in His image.

The "war" between religion and science should be a cold one. Fought based on containment, not destruction. Science is too useful to destroy, when it operates in its proper place.

Technorati Tags:science, religion, cold war, boundaries
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator