Transcript Slide 1

Science and Religion
OCR
•
•
•
•
•
Scientific and philosophical views on the creation of
the universe;
The debate between Creationism and the Big Bang
theory;
Darwinism and evolutionary theory;
The debate concerning ‘Intelligent Design’ and
‘Irreducible Complexity’;
Religious responses to challenges posed by
scientific views concerning the origins and of the
universe and origins and evolution of life.
The Issues
• Is it possible to accept the findings of modern
science and be religious?
• Do the findings of scientists undermine the
case for belief in God?
Format
1. Introduction:
•
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
epistemology and the approaches of science and
religion
The creation of the universe
The challenge of evolution
Creationism
Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity
Attempts to reconcile science and religion;
the grand theory of everything.
Science and Religion: An Introduction
“Scientifically Proven”
• Scientific knowledge = definite truth?
• We certainly feel more comfortable when
something has been scientifically proven …
– http://www.tellyads.com/show_movie.php?filena
me=TA3389
• We trust scientists (mostly).
5 Key Steps in Science
• The reason we are happy to swallow the pills
doctors give us – along with a whole host of
other reasons to trust science – is because of
the process of testing that science uses.
• There are five key steps:
1. Observation.
Something is observed to take place (e.g.
Newton’s apple).
5 Key Steps in Science
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hypothesis
The scientist proposes an explanation of their observation
(eg gravity).
Experiment
The scientist tests the hypothesis. Stage two is repeated if
the experiment reveals flaws in the hypothesis.
Law
When enough experiments have been carried out, a
‘scientific law’ can be produced. It is a general rule that to
make predications and inform other observations. Again, it
can be revised if something else happens to falsify the rule.
Theory
The scientist may develop a theory to link several laws
together and form an underlying principle.
Problems with scientific method
• Scientists are only human and might become rather
attached to their laws and theories, despite counterevidence.
• A number of assumptions are made to give
parameters to the experiment. Not all factors would
be considered
– Eg would you, as a scientist, consider
adding being a Crystal Palace
supporter as a criteria in a study of
causes of dementia?
– Would you consider adding religious
belief as a criteria in a study of
mental health issues?
Problems with scientific method
• Perception can be fallible.
– We expect to see things, so we see them.
– We don’t expect to see things, so we miss them.
• But that’s about it …
On the other hand
• Scientists are often willing to re-examine the
evidence and consider new theories.
• Religions are not.
• The Parable of the Invisible Gardener by John
Wisdom.
• "Two people return to their long neglected garden and find,
among the weeds, that a few of the old plants are surprisingly
vigorous. One says to the other, 'It must be that a gardener
has been coming and doing something about these weeds.'
The other disagrees and an argument ensues. They pitch their
tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. The believer
wonders if there is an invisible gardener, so they patrol with
bloodhounds but the bloodhounds never give a cry. Yet the
believer remains unconvinced, and insists that the gardener is
invisible, has no scent and gives no sound. The sceptic doesn't
agree, and asks how a so-called invisible, intangible, elusive
gardener differ from an imaginary gardener, or even no
gardener at all."
Religious Belief
• Despite all the
philosophical attempts to
form ‘proof’ for the
existence of God, most
religious people don’t use
reason and logic, they
simply have faith.
• A feeling of ‘just knowing’.
Augustine said …
• “Faith is to believe
what you do not see;
the reward of this faith
is to see what you
believe.”
• What do you suppose
he means?
Epistemology
• “Theory of Knowledge”
The branch of philosophy that studies the
nature of knowledge, in particular its
foundations, scope and validity.
• That is to say, how can we know what is real
and true?
Realists & Anti-realists
• People can be divided into …
Realists
Anti-realists
There are objective truths,
only one thing is right/true.
Truth is subjective; it’s true
for you but not true for me.
In reality …
• … we’re a mix of the two.
• Some things are relative/subjective (eg
favourite band), some things are objective (eg
we are at Tiffin School).
• But with religion it all gets a little hazy.
Consider a realist and anti-realist response to
the statement “God exists”.
• Ah.
Descartes
• Systematic doubt.
• He decided to “reject as
absolutely false anything
which gave rise in my mind to
the slightest doubt”
(Discourse on Method)
• He then rejected sense
experience as it can be
mistaken.
• How do we know we’re not
deceived by an evil demon or
we’re not in a dream the
whole time?
Descartes
• Well, if we doubt everything
then we can say with
certainty that there was
doubting, and therefore
thinking, taking place.
• “Cogito ergo sum”
• He went on to say that as this
knowledge came through
intuition, ideas are superior
to the senses.
• Hence his Ontological
Argument for the existence of
God.
Knowledge and Belief
Faith ‘is the great cop out, the great
• Everyone from Plato to
excuse toPolkinghorne
evade the needhas
to think and
to evaluate
evidence.to
Faith
belief
something
sayison
thisin
spite of, perhaps
even
because of, lack
issue – its
massive.
of different
evidence’ views
• Many
(Speech to
the Edinburgh
International
about
the nature
of reality
Science
andFestival,
truth.April 15, 1992)
• Important to realise that
someone with a strict
empiricist view of the
world (eg Dawkins) is
choosing one of a range of
approaches.
Knowledge and Belief
• Belief
giving assent to something
which may or may not be true,
where there is not and
perhaps could never be,
evidence to support it beyond
reasonable doubt.
• Knowledge
belief which is supported with
evidence, where our
experience of the world is
sufficient to justify our belief.
– Libby Ahluwalia, Understanding
Philosophy of Religion.
Opposites?
• An strict empiricist is not going to believe in
religion.
• A regular empiricist may be willing to accept
that there could be other forms of knowledge
other than empirical knowledge.
– Eg that it’s not just a matter of reducing things
down to their component parts.
– Whether that includes religious knowledge (eg
through a religious experience) is up to the
individual.
Opposites?
• While it is undoubtedly true that science is based on
empirical methods, science does not disprove the
existence of God.
• Instead, science, such as Cosmology, helps us to
better understand the universe in which we live.
• Scientific findings may undermine belief that God’s
role is only to ‘fill in the gaps’.
– For example, if you say that God created life on earth,
because you could not explain it any other way, the theory
of evolution will immediately threaten your belief in God
the Creator of life. You would have to either modify your
belief in God or discard it in the face of the evidence.
Opposites?
• However, if a religious believer holds the view that
God is the Creator of life because God established
the scientific laws that enabled life to evolve, then
belief in God is not necessarily undermined by the
theory of evolution.
• Alistair McGrath states:
– One of the greatest disservices that Dawkins has done to
the natural sciences is to portray them as relentlessly and
inexorably atheistic. They are nothing of the sort; yet
Dawkins’ crusading vigour has led to the growth of this
alienating perception in many parts of North American
conservative Protestantism.
The ‘How’ and ‘Why’ Oversimplification
• A view that is often found in books to explain the
relationship between science and religion is one that
suggests that religion explains ‘why’ the universe
exists or ‘why’ humans exist, while science explains
‘how’ things happen as they do.
• The problem with saying this is that science quite
clearly explains ‘why’ things happen as well as ‘how’.
– For example, modern accounts of gravity clearly explain
why any object with a mass is attracted by other objects
that have a mass.
The ‘How’ and ‘Why’ Oversimplification
• An alternative way to express the ‘How’ and
‘Why’ principle would be to point to the
different types of explanation that occur.
• At one and the same time, an explanation
may:
1. Identify what something is
2. Identify the function of an object
3. Identify the method by which something has been
constructed
4. Identify why the thing was caused to exist
5. Identify why the thing continues to exist
Task
• What do you think?
Write a paragraph giving your opinion on
whether things can only be known empirically,
or whether there are other types of truths out
there. Are you a realist or anti-realist?
• What do you know?
List out all the people and facts you know
about this issue. Draw together things you
have learned in various subjects.
•
Consider the following two quotations.
What points are they making (and
assuming) about the relationship between
science and religion? Which view do you
find more persuasive? Why?
Task
I do not see how science and religion could be
unified, or even synthesized, under any
common scheme of explanation or analysis;
but I also do not understand why the two
enterprises should experience any conflict.
Science tries to document the factual
character of the natural world, and to develop
theories that co-ordinate and explain these
facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in
the equally important, but utterly different,
realm of human purposes, meanings and
values - subjects that the factual domain of
science might illuminate, but can never
resolve.
(Stephen Jay Gould (1999) Rocks of Ages)
I think religion kills. And where it
doesn’t kill, it stifles. Religion scorns
the human intellect by saying that the
human brain is simply too puny to
understand. …I don’t think that there
is any question that science cannot
tackle. And I think that, as it tackles
them, it gives people answers that are
much more reliable, much more
plausible, than the obscure
arguments religion provides. I mean,
many of the questions religion tries to
answer are not real questions. Take
one that you’ve just mentioned, the
purpose of the universe. In my view,
that’s an entirely invented question.
(Peter Atkins in Russell Stannard
(1996) Science and Wonders)