In the October 1927 issue of Popular Science, we see some interesting thoughts from men who were, well, thoughtful:
Will Durant, Ph.D., Philosopher; Author, The Story of Philosophy; Director, Labor Temple School, New York
GOD, to me, is the creative power operating continuously in all the processes of growth. Religion is reverence for, and cooperation with, all the forces of growth, within ourselves and without. Science, if it takes its lead from physics, is in irreconcilable conflict with religion; but if science takes its lead from biology (as it may in our century) and recognizes that the processes of life reveal the inner nature of the world more nearly than the mechanisms of matter, it may be possible to reconcile science with a sane, natural religion.I'm reminded of Karen Armstrong's article, "Resisting Modernity" in which she writes
As to harmonizing the theory of evolution with the Biblical account of creation I do not believe it can be done, and I do not see why it should. The story of Genesis is beautiful, and profoundly significant as symbolism; but there is no good reason to torture it into conformity with modern theory.
By the middle of the 20th century, pundits and intellectuals in the West generally took it for granted that secularism was the coming ideology and that religion would never again play a major role in public life. However, within a few years, it became clear that a militant piety had erupted in every major faith, dragging God and religion back to center stage from the sidelines to which they had been relegated. The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran showed the potential of this new form of faith. Western observers were astonished to see an obscure mullah overturning what had appeared to be one of the most progressive countries in the Middle East. “Who ever took religion seriously?” cried a frustrated official in the US State Department shortly after the revolution. But the United States itself had recently witnessed the rise of Jerry Falwell and his Moral Majority, and a radical religiosity fueled the Arab- Israeli conflict on both sides.It is often forgotten that Darwin had friends within the Evangelical community for years. For years, Christians did not see the science of evolutionary theory as a threat to their faith.
For years, the attitude, "religion is dying as knowledge increases" has proven itself false. The postivists celebrated their empiricism and assumed that other human beings would fall into lockstep with them. They predicted the downfall of religion as science became the accepted way of looking at the world. They were wrong.
Many people saw the path of science bifurcate from that of religion -- the assumption of naturalism and the insistence on evidence contrasts sharply against that of dogma, tradition and faith; but the goal of science, the end of science, modern people still believe, converged with that of religion -- upon God. Many of these sorts of people (Durant above, Jastrow below) believe that science will somehow bring about, at whatever future point in time, more knowledge of God, rather than less reason to believe.
The attitude of Jastrow has a fatal flaw in its logic:
For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been waiting there for centuries.If scientists are truly dedicated to discovering as much knowledge as possible via the application of reason and the scientific method to our universe, then this fails on many points. For one, it wouldn't be a scientist's nightmare to discover a Deity. If the method of science (somehow, theoretically) leads there, then the "true" scientist, following the method, should rejoice. And so this leads to the natural question: can the method of science actually provide such evidence? Because science has piled up mountains of natural knowledge, and undercuts belief in supernatural processes by providing evidence for a reasonable and rational natural alternative explanation, I do not think so.
--Robert Jastrow, astronomer, in God and the Astronomers, W. W. Norton, p. 116, (1978).
For another thing, the mountains of ignorance have not been scaled by anyone, because believing that something is true doesn't accomplish the same work as science -- it doesn't confer real knowledge. The theologians are not standing there, waiting on scientists to catch up. The theologians have instead contributed to the mountains of ignorance for centuries (rather than standing loftily above them) by insisting on adherence to their various conflicting Scriptures and various conflicting interpretations. They are standing at the bottom of the mountain, professing to know what is above in the lofty heights; they do not know it.
It is only in Modernism that the Catholic faith finally admitted that the Big Bang and evolution are not anti-theistic and not heretical. And it is only because of the overwhelming evidence for both of these propositions, neither of which have ever even reasonably been posited by theologians. The primitive ideas for both of these things can be traced back to the Greeks and beyond, but it is one thing to say that people have had beliefs, and another thing entirely to say that people have established scientific knowledge.
Although I think the modern attitudes of most scientists have changed (see esp. the bottom part of that article) with respect to optimism towards the disappearance of superstition and religious dogma, there is no good reason to think that the underlying logic has changed. If people agree that the scientific method establishes knowledge, and that faith is not knowledge, then the bifurcation of science and religion is a deep and meaningful issue. If faith has not suffered, it has certainly adapted as knowledge has been established to contradict the teachings and interpretations of the Bible. Admittedly, theists may always claim that the contradiction lies in the interpretation of their Scriptures, and not in the Scriptures themselves, but the effect of marginalization of faith via scientific progress is a real phenomenon that I think modern theists are quite well-aware of.
And I think that their opposition to modern science is thus well-understood. They know the primitive and superstitious beliefs and traditions of the ancients have been left behind in the wake of scientific progress and revolution -- and turning backwards is an option they know isn't open or available.
Is it even possible for science to justify faith, or will it continue to peck away at the underlying support for belief in the necessity or evidence of supernaturalism?
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy
