The New War Between Science and Religion
In my mind there is most certainly a shift occurring in the moot war between religion and science. Traditionally this war was fought between those Christians who felt that science was undermining their particular brand of faith, and the scientists themselves. Although there are pockets of extremist resistance on both sides which allows this war to continue, the scene has changed dramatically.
The new battleground as evidenced by my own experience on Christian forums, is mainly between Christian ‘accommodationists’ and Christian ‘Fundamentalists‘.
Fundamentalists are characterised by a literalist ‘black and white’ approach to the Bible and any area of science that constitutes a challenge to this is viewed as a potential existential threat to their faith, consequently, challenging scientific revelations will be discarded out of hand without due investigation or consideration.
Accommodationists do not view science and Scripture as at war, but rather as complimentary partners both busy at work in uncovering their respective ‘revelations’ of God.
Put very simply, the Bible is the “why” and science is the “how”. The Bible was not written as a scientific textbook and science is [in my opinion] unable to uncover non-materialistic causation such as hard-wired morality.
Anyway, in view of this, I found this article from the Chronicle of Higher Education a rather interesting read:
There is a new war between science and religion, rising from the ashes of the old one, which ended with the defeat of the anti-evolution forces in the 2005 “intelligent design” trial. The new war concerns questions that are more profound than whether or not to teach evolution. Unlike the old science-religion war, this battle is going to be fought not in the courts but in the arena of public opinion. The new war pits those who argue that science and “moderate” forms of religion are compatible worldviews against those who think they are not.
The former group, known as accommodationists, seeks to carve out areas of knowledge that are off-limits to science, arguing that certain fundamental features of the world—such as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the origin of the universe—allow for God to act in ways that cannot be detected using the methods of science. Some accommodationists, including Francis Collins, head of the National Institutes of Health, suggest that there are deeply mysterious, spiritual domains of human experience, such as morality, mind, and consciousness, for which only religion can provide deep insights.
Prestigious organizations like the National Academy of Sciences have come down squarely on the side of the accommodationists. On March 25, the NAS let the John Templeton Foundation use its venue to announce that the biologist (and accommodationist) Francisco Ayala had been awarded its Templeton Prize, with the NAS president himself, Ralph Cicerone, having nominated him. The foundation has in recent years awarded its prize to scientists and philosophers who are accommodationists, though it used to give it to more overtly religious figures, like Mother Teresa and Billy Graham. Critics are disturbed at the NAS’s so closely identifying itself with the accommodationist position. As the physicist Sean Carroll said, “Templeton has a fairly overt agenda that some scientists are comfortable with, but very many are not. In my opinion, for a prestigious scientific organization to work with them sends the wrong message.”
Tags: Christianity, Science & Medical, Theology Doctrine Philosophy
May 13th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
Thanks for sharing this article. Sceince when view correctly will never disprove the Bible because the Word of God is Truth. Science will only afirm the Bibles claims. I have a christian blog also feel free to visit it at http://www.121youth.wordpress.com
May 13th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
I’m truly amazed by the fact that people continues to insist about this difference. I’m not sure science will ever end up with a reliable answer…
http://www.religionscanr.com/
May 13th, 2010 at 8:12 pm
@ MissSapphire: Your url doesn’t work. Perhaps you could check it.
We’ve just had a long debate on Creationism, expect everyone’s all posted out. I’m with Arthur C Clarke: “I would defend the liberty of consenting adult Creationists to practice whatever intellectual perversions they like in the privacy of their own homes; but it is also necessary to protect the young and innocent.”
May 14th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
Without getting into the arguments, it is a mistake to accept a perjorative description “accommodationist” imposed by opponents.
May 14th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
@Sophie
Arthur C Clarke do you understand the hypocrisy and irony in your example Sophie, enough said
May 15th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
@ Goy: What a silly comment. I used the quote because it puts a truth well and succinctly. I’m no great fan of Arthur C Clark, but quoting someone on one subject doesn’t imply that you agree with everything they do or say. Sigh.
May 15th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
@ Matt: I’m not too bothered what terms literal Creationists use about me. Not when I think of how I’d describe them. Do you think doolally’s too harsh?
May 15th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
I have just finished reading ‘Quantum’ by Manjit Kumar, a history of the scientific debates that surrounded the birth of the science of Quantum Mechanics, especially between Einstein and Bohr. The most impressive element of the debate is that the individuals were in a constant struggle to reconcile their personal world views with the evidence generated by experiments designed to challenge cherished beliefs.
They could never have reached the understanding of Quantum Mechanics that has so successfully transformed society over the last 50 years, if they had operated on a ‘faith’ based view of the world.
May 15th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
@Sophie,
The statement is dumb.
“I would defend the liberty .. ”
” … but it is also necessary to protect the young and innocent.”
A typical example of neoliberal moral contradiction and hypocrisy, I know in the past you have had some intellectual difficulty to grasp the concept of neoliberalism – for a real world example see the ConDem pact.
May 15th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
@Sophie,
Arthur C Clarke’s in his alternate Creationists universe:
“I would defend the liberty of consenting adult Evolutionists to practice whatever intellectual perversions they like in the privacy of their own homes; but it is also necessary to protect the young and innocent.”
May 16th, 2010 at 10:09 am
@ Goy: I’m not going to bother saying this again. Language is my primary skill and, as such, I respect it. If I’m not familiar with a word I don’t use it until I know what it means. If I come across a word I don’t know I look it up. I’ve had to look up quite a few words you’ve used
Look up neoliberal. And any other word you’re not sure of. Redefining words doesn’t make you look clever. It makes you look silly.
“Neoliberalism outside the USA is a label for economic policies based on neoclassical theories of economics that minimize the role of the state and maximize the private business sector.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberal
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376
Regardless of your beliefs, reversing a quotation is neither amusing nor intellectually satisfying. Evolution isn’t a belief. It’s based on what’s empirically verifiable. The facts available disprove Creationism.
The young should not be taught literal Creationism instead of science because it’s untrue. It’s no more appropriate than teaching them that Tom and Jerry were historical figures. Admittedly, many parents lie to little kids about Father Christmas or the Tooth Fairy. The creation of the universe is a rather bigger deal.
If you feel you can prove that literal Creationism is factually true, please provide us with rational justifications for this belief; justifications that do not boil down to “it’s in the Bible.”
How, for example, do you explain the fossil record?
May 16th, 2010 at 1:52 pm
@Sophie,
I am not debating the points of cotention between creationists and evolutionists, my contention is that both have the right to hold their opinions and if they so wish the right to pass them on to their children.
Arthur C Clarke in his hypocrisy expressed the preference that one of these groups should have the privacy of their homes breached and the upbringing of their children sanctioned.
May 16th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
It is surely absurd to contend that all points of view are equally valid or should have an equal status in our schools.
Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo had to fight the conventional wisdom of their day to establish that the earth revolves round the sun. We now know they were right.
May 16th, 2010 at 4:58 pm
@ Stephen: You and I may think it absurd but recent debates on this blog have highlighted that a number of posters here believe young Earth Creationism is a real alternative to science. Deeply weird.
As a fairly mainstream Christian, it worries me. Even if such ideas gain no ground in education there’s still a concern that such beliefs do the church harm.
May 16th, 2010 at 8:56 pm
We all get weird ideas at times. The interesting question is how one goes about testing them even when you don’t like the conclusions.
The reason I liked the book in my posting above, is that it tells the story of how the scientific community responded when some of their most deeply held beliefs (classical mechanics/ cause and effect) were challenged by evidence that led them to quantum mechanics. They went out and constructed experiments to challenge the edges of what they knew.
The trouble with relying on words is that semantic arguments can never resolve these issues. Wittgenstein spent a lifetime hoping that it might be otherwise.
I prefer trusting a scientific methodology in which we offer a theory and then try to disprove it.
May 17th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
@ Stephen: There’s another post on this blog about “Why Believing in a Real, Actual Adam and Eve Matters”
The author writes “the Church and the faithful, should, no not should, that’s too soft a word, absolutely must affirm the historicity of Adam and Eve.”
I find this highly disturbing. He’s asking us to metaphorically shut our eyes, put our fingers in our ears and whistle. Any religion that relies on adherents lying to themselves about science and empirical evidence is in deep, deep trouble.