The first major challenge to religion in an age of science is the
success of the methods of science. Science seems to provide the only
reliable path to knowledge. Many people view science as objective,
universal, rational, and based on solid observational evidence. Religion,
by contrast, seems to be subjective, parochial, emotional, and based on
traditions or authorities that disagree with each other. Any view of the
relationship of science and religion reflects philosophical assumptions.
Our discussion must therefore draw from three disciplines, not just two:
*science *(the empirical study of the order of nature), *theology *(critical
reflection on the life and thought of the religious community), and
*philosophy, *especially epistemology (analysis of the characteristics of
inquiry and knowledge) and metaphysics (analysis of the most general
characteristics of reality). Theology deals primarily with religious
beliefs, which must always be seen against the wider background of
religious traditions that includes formative scriptures, communal rituals,
individual experiences, and ethical norms. I will be particularly concerned
with the epistemological assumptions of recent Western authors writing
about the relationship between science and religious beliefs.
Scientific materialism makes two assertions: (1) the scientific
method is the only reliable path to knowledge; (2) matter (or matter and
energy) is the fundamental reality in the universe. The first is an
*epistemological *assertion about the characteristics of inquiry and
knowledge. The second is a *metaphysical *or ontological assertion about
the characteristics of reality. The two assertions are linked by the
assumption that only the entities and causes with which science deals are
real; only science can progressively disclose the nature of the real. In
addition, many forms of materialism express *reductionism. *Epistemological
reductionism claims that the laws and theories of all the sciences are in
principle reducible to the laws of physics and chemistry. Metaphysical
reductionism claims that the component parts of any system constitute its
most fundamental reality. Let us consider the assertion that the
scientific method is the only reliable form of understanding. Science
starts from reproducible public data. Theories are formulated and their
implications are tested against experimental observations. Additional
criteria of coherence, comprehensiveness, and fruitfulness influence choice
among theories. Religious beliefs are not acceptable, in this view, because
religion lacks such public data, such experimental testing, and such
criteria of evaluation. Science alone is objective, open-minded, universal,
cumulative, and progressive. Religious traditions, by contrast, are said to
be subjective, closed-minded, parochial, uncritical, and resistant to
change. We will see that historians and philosophers of science have
questioned this idealized portrayal of science, but many scientists accept
it and think it undermines the credibility of religious beliefs.
Most of Carl Sagan’s TV series and book, *Cosmos, *is devoted to a
fascinating presentation of the discoveries of modern astronomy, but at
intervals he interjects his own philosophical commentary, for example, "The
Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be."2 He says that the
universe is eternal or else its source is simply unknowable. Sagan attacks
Christian ideas of God at a number of points, arguing that mystical and
authoritarian claims threaten the ultimatum of the scientific method, which
he says is "universally applicable." Nature (which he capitalizes) replaces
God as the object of reverence. He expresses great awe at the beauty,
vastness, and interrelatedness of the cosmos. : "Anything can be reduced to
simple, obvious mechanical interactions. The cell is a machine. The animal
is a machine. Man is a machine."5 Consciousness is an epiphenomenon that
will eventually be explained biochemically.
In Darwin’s day, evolution was taken mainly as a challenge to
design in nature and as a challenge to human dignity (assuming that no
sharp line separates human and animal forms), but it was also taken by some
groups as a challenge to scripture. Some defended biblical inerrancy and
totally rejected evolution. Yet most traditionalist theologians reluctantly
accepted the idea of evolution -- though sometimes only after making an
exception for humanity, arguing that the soul is inaccessible to scientific
investigation. Liberal theologians had already accepted the historical
analysis of biblical texts ("higher criticism"), which traced the influence
of historical contexts and cultural assumptions on biblical writings. They
saw evolution as consistent with their optimistic view of historical
progress, and they spoke of evolution as God’s way of creating.
In 1982, the U.S. District Court overturned the Arkansas law,
primarily because it favored a particular religious view, violating the
constitutional separation of church and state. Although the bill itself
made no explicit reference to the Bible, it used many phrases and ideas
taken from Genesis. The writings of the leaders of the creationist movement
had made clear their religious purposes.13 Many of the witnesses against
the bill were theologians or church leaders who objected to its theological
assumptions.14
The court also ruled that "creation science" is not legitimate science. It
concluded that the scientific community, not the legislature or the courts,
should decide the status of scientific theories. It was shown that
proponents of creation science had not even submitted papers to scientific
journals, much less had them published. At the trial, scientific witnesses
showed that a long evolutionary history is central in almost all fields of
science, including astronomy, geology, paleontology, and biochemistry, as
well as most branches of biology. They also replied to the purported
scientific evidence cited by creationists. Claims of geological evidence
for a universal flood and for the absence of fossils of transitional forms
between species were shown to be dubious. In 1987, the U.S. The Supreme
Court struck down a Louisiana creationism law; it said the law would have
restricted academic freedom and supported a particular religious
viewpoint."Creation
science" is a threat to both religious and scientific freedom. It is
understandable that the search for certainty in a time of moral confusion
and rapid cultural change has encouraged the growth of biblical literalism.
But when absolutist positions lead to intolerance and attempts to impose
particular religious views on others in a pluralistic society, we must
object in the name of religious freedom. Some of the same forces of rapid
cultural change have contributed to the revival of Islamic fundamentalism
and the enforcement of orthodoxy in Iran and elsewhere. We can also see the
danger to science when proponents of ideological positions try to use the
power of the state to reshape science, whether it be in Nazi Germany,
Stalinist Russia, Khomeini’s Iran, or creationists in the United States.
This epistemological dichotomy was supported by the metaphysical
dualism of spirit and matter, or soul and body. But this dualism was
mitigated insofar as the spiritual realm permeated the material realm.
While theologians emphasized God’s transcendence, most of them also
referred to divine immanence, and the Holy Spirit was said to work in
nature as well as in human life and history. St. Thomas held that God
intervenes miraculously at particular times and also continually sustains
the natural order. God as primary cause works through the secondary causes
that science studies, but these two kinds of cause are on completely
different levels.Another movement advocating a sharp separation of the
spheres of science and religion is *existentialism. *Here the contrast is
between the realm of personal selfhood and the realm of impersonal objects.
The former is known only through subjective involvement; the latter is
known in the objective detachment typical of the scientist. Common to all
existentialists -- whether atheistic or theistic -- is the conviction that
we can know authentic human existence only by being personally involved as
unique individuals making free decisions. The meaning of life is found only
in commitment and action, never in the spectatorial, rationalistic attitude
of the scientist searching for abstract general concepts and universal laws.
The distinctive function of *religious language, *according to
linguistic analysts, is to recommend a way of life, to elicit a set of
attitudes, and to encourage allegiance to particular moral principles. Much
of religious language is connected with ritual and practice in the
worshiping community. It may also express and lead to personal religious
experience. One of the great strengths of the linguistic movement is that
it does not concentrate on religious beliefs as abstract systems of thought
but looks at the way religious language is actually used in the lives of
individuals and communities. Linguistic analysts draw on empirical studies
of religion by sociologists, anthropologists, and psychologists, as well as
the literature produced within religious traditions. Some scholars have
studied diverse cultures and concluded that religious traditions are *ways
of life *that are primarily practical and normative. Stories, rituals, and
religious practices bind individuals in communities of shared memories,
assumptions, and strategies for living. Other scholars claim that
religion’s primary aim is the transformation of the person. Religious
literature speaks extensively of experiences of liberation from guilt
through forgiveness, trust overcoming anxiety, or the transition from
brokenness to wholeness. Eastern traditions talk about liberation from
bondage to suffering and self-centeredness in the experiences of peace,
unity, and enlightenment.23 These are obviously activities and experiences
having little to do with science. *Existentialism *rightly puts personal
commitment at the center of religious faith, but it ends by privatizing and
interiorizing religion to the neglect of its communal aspects. If God acts
exclusively in the realm of selfhood, not in the realm of nature, the
natural order is devoid of religious significance, except as the impersonal
stage for the drama of personal existence. This anthropocentric framework,
concentrating on humanity alone, offers little protection against the
modern exploitation of nature as a collection of impersonal objects. If
religion deals with God and the self, and science deals with nature, who
can say anything about the relationship between God and nature or between
the self and nature? To be sure, religion is concerned with the meaning of
personal life, but this cannot be divorced from belief in a meaningful
cosmos. I will also suggest that existentialism exaggerates the contrast
between an impersonal, objective stance in science and the personal
involvement essential to religion. Personal judgment does enter the work of
the scientist, and rational reflection is an important part of religious
inquiry.
1. In the attempt to legitimate religion in an age of science,
it is tempting to dwell on similarities and pass over differences. Although
science is indeed a more theory-laden enterprise than the positivists had
recognized, it is clearly more objective than religion in each of the
senses that have been mentioned. The kinds of data from which religion
draws are radically different from those in science, and the possibility of
testing religious beliefs is more limited.
2. In reacting to the absolute distinctions presented by adherents of the
Independence thesis, it would be easy to minimize the distinctive features
of religion. In particular, by treating religion as an intellectual system
and talking only about religious beliefs, one may distort the diverse
characteristics of religion as a way of life, which the linguistic analysts
have so well described. Religious belief must always be seen in the context
of the life of the religious community and in relation to the goal of
personal transformation.
3. Consideration of methodology is an important but preliminary task in the
dialogue of science and religion. The issues tend to be somewhat abstract
and therefore of more interest to philosophers of science and philosophers
of religion than to scientists or theologians and religious believers. Yet
methodological issues have rightly come under new scrutiny in both
communities. Furthermore, if we acknowledge methodological similarities we
are more likely to encourage attention to substantive issues. If theology
at its best is a reflective enterprise that can develop and grow, it can be
open to new insights, including those derived from the theories of science.
A theology of nature does not start from science, as some
versions of natural theology do. Instead, it starts from a religious
tradition based on religious experience and historical revelation. But it
holds that some traditional doctrines need to be reformulated in the light
of current science. Here science and religion are considered to be
relatively independent sources of ideas, but with some areas of overlap in
their concerns. In particular, the doctrines of creation, providence, and
human nature are affected by the findings of science. If religious beliefs
are to be in harmony with scientific knowledge, some adjustments or
modifications are called for. The theologian will want to draw mainly from
broad features of science that are widely accepted, rather than risk
adapting to limited or speculative theories that are more likely to be
abandoned in the future. Our understanding of the general characteristics
of nature will affect our models of God’s relation to nature. Nature is
today understood to be a dynamic evolutionary process with a long history
of emergent novelty, characterized throughout by chance and law. The
natural order is ecological, interdependent, and multileveled. These
characteristics will modify our representation of the relation of both God
and humanity to nonhuman nature. This will, in turn, affect our attitudes
toward nature and will have practical implications for environmental
ethics. The problem of evil will also be viewed differently in an
evolutionary rather than a static world.In any theology of nature there are
theological issues that require clarification. Is some reformulation of the
classical idea of God’s omnipotence called for? Theologians have wrestled
for centuries with the problem of reconciling omnipotence and omniscience
with human freedom and the existence of evil and suffering. But a new
problem is raised by the role of chance in diverse fields of science. Do we
defend the traditional idea of divine sovereignty and hold that within what
appears to the scientist to be a chance all events are really
providentially controlled by God? Or do both human freedom and chance in
nature represent a self-limitation on God’s foreknowledge and power,
required by the creation of this sort of world? How do we represent God’s
action in the world? The traditional distinction of primary and secondary
causes preserves the integrity of the secondary causal chains that science
studies. God does not interfere but acts through secondary causes, which at
their own level provide a complete explanation of all events. This tends
toward deism if God has planned all things from the beginning so they would
unfold by their own structures (deterministic and probabilistic) to achieve
the goals intended. Is the biblical picture of the particularity of divine
action then replaced by the uniformity of divine concurrence with natural
causes? Should we then speak only of God’s one action, the whole of cosmic
history?
*Process philosophy *is a promising candidate for a mediating
role today because it was itself formulated under the influence of both
scientific and religious thought, even as it responded to persistent
problems in the history of Western philosophy (for example, the mind/body
problem). Alfred North Whitehead has been the most influential exponent of
process categories, though theological implications have been more fully
investigated by Charles Hartshorne, John Cobb, and others. The influence of
biology and physics is evident in the process of viewing reality as a
dynamic web of interconnected events. Nature is characterized by change,
chance, and novelty as well as order. It is incomplete and still coming
into being. Process thinkers are critical of reductionism; they defend
organismic categories applicable to activities at higher levels of
organization. They see continuity as well as distinctiveness among levels
of reality; the characteristics of each level have rudimentary forerunners
at earlier and lower levels. Against a dualism of matter and mind, or a
materialism that has no place for mind, process though envisages two
aspects of all events as seen from within and from without. Because
humanity is continuous with the rest of nature (despite the uniqueness of
reflective self-consciousness), human experience can be taken as a clue to
interpreting the experience of other beings. Genuinely new phenomena emerge
in evolutionary history, but the basic metaphysical categories apply to all
events. KR IRS 17 1 24
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 at 10:59, Markendeya Yeddanapudi <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> --
> *Mar*The Religion and Science Masks
>
>
>
> Economics based on the total destruction of nature, wears many masks.
> Today the most visible masks are religion and science. The two, always
> indulge in sham fights. But both of them divert attention from the terrible
> destruction of nature. We actually see the big clownish assertion of many
> religions, that they are also sciences.
>
> Today economic life is motivated by the greed for more and more money, the
> greed that has created the routinized destruction of nature comprehensively
> and irreparably. The scientific outlooks which means looking at nature as
> an outside observer and not feel nature as part of nature, has become the
> unquestionable paradigm. The basic eye for beauty and feeling the wonderful
> sublimation of the oneness with and as nature has been killed. Feelings and
> emotions which create the hormonal messages in the bloodstream, which reach
> the cells which function symbiotically with nature, have been damned as
> bias. It is at the very core of living in nature, as nature and existing
> symbiotically in nature’s symbiosis, that maiming is happening.
>
> Under the Sanatana Dharma, the symbiosis junction points of feelings
> generated as a result of the inhalation and exhalation of smell messages of
> all the organisms of the Biosphere, in lush and healthy nature were located
> and Temples were built there, with a God of environmental symbiosis, as the
> deity for worship. The intensity of symbiotic feelings, creating
> sublimation was at the maximum in that Temple point. As a result God was
> felt intensely creating the spell of total devotion. God was the creation
> of the smell and sound messages of the healthy, thick and lush flora and
> fauna. Free and healthy nature was the basic requirement of the God of the
> Temple. The diverse smells automatically created great belief in the God of
> the Temple. Pilgrims traversed for hundreds of miles to breathe, smell,
> sense, and, experience the exhilarating aura and belief flow of the God of
> the Temple. The Idol was animate, the animation resulting from the free,
> healthy and happy flora and fauna.
>
> The most important aspect of a Temple is the sacredness of free flora and
> fauna. But today, nature near and at the Temple has been destroyed and
> urban towns for trade and commerce have been built. God or nature has been
> eliminated from the Temple. Trade and Commerce, the tourist centers, Hotels
> etc, rob God of habitat in the Temple.
>
> Economics is reducing the God there into the ultimate make believe.
> Culture must mean the culture of feeling symbiotically with the free flora
> and fauna, and not the mere exhortation that culture is just a political
> right. The fundamental Right of Religion means the Fundamental Right to
> feel the symbiosis of free and healthy nature and not some meaningless
> Cartesian oratory. But unfortunately and tragically today, religion has
> become the mask for economics, trade and commerce.
>
> Science, Technology, Trade and commerce go together. They are based on the
> destruction of nature comprehensively. The science mask of trade and
> commerce is promoted by outfits which euphemize themselves as Vignana
> Vedikas. They are in fact Lux Toilet Soap Vedikas. Commercial products are
> entering the chapters of subjects in the education courses, under the guise
> of sciences.
>
> YM
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZoogEf-XwqGSJ7j5AWfVNUiFX4LBHSmE01goKmef-nmtpQ%40mail.gmail.com.
