 |
19 Februrary 2005
In his book, [Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life], the late Stephen Jay Gould elaborates his view that science and religion represent "non-overlapping magisteria" -- that is, while both science and religion are necessary for a full life, each has its distinctive domain of authority that at their best are complementary but do not overlap. This position did not originate with Gould. It has roots that run back to the "two truths" solutions of the late Middle ages, and it has formed an alternative either to the strong natural theological tradition of British science or to the warfare model that originated in the Enlightenment. For many it has been the preferred option for the science and religion relationship. However, a growing body of historical and philosophical scholarship, as well as current public issues -- from science education standards to stem cell research policy -- that involve scientific and religious concerns, suggest that such separation does not provide an adequate historical account of the relationship, nor does it sufficiently address the actual dynamics of science and religion in America and beyond. This symposium assembles a group of international scholars to explore historical and philosophical ideas suggesting a more interactive form of relationship, both conceptually and practically, by addressing two questions: Has science had an inescapable impact on religion? Have religious ideas had a constructive impact on science?
Co-Moderators
- Phillip R. Sloan, University of Notre Dame
- James
Miller, AAAS Program of Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion
Speakers
- John Hedley Brooke, University of Oxford
Shaping the Content of Science: Have Religious Beliefs Played a Role?
- Noah Efron, Bar Illan University and Princeton University
NOMA & Nomos: Conflicting Jewish Views of the Relationship between
NOMA and Nomos: Conflicting Jewish Views of the Relationship between Nature
and Yiddishkeit
- Job Kozhamthadam, Jnana-Deepa Vidyapeeth University
Gould's NOMA Theory and Its Problems: Compartmentalization vs Complementarity
- Paul Kurtz, Council for Secular Humanism and State University of New York at Buffalo
Science and Religion: Are They Compatible?
- Ronald L. Numbers, University of Wisconsin, Madison
The Christian Origins of Methodological Naturalism
Science and Religion: Are They Compatible?
Presenter: Paul Kurtz
There is an inherent conflict between religion and science, especially if religion claims to have a special or higher truth, if it maintains that ethics must be based on religious faith, or if it insists that the political order must draw its basic principles from religion. I submit that ethical principles can be autonomous; that is, based on humanistic values and rationalistic deliberation, focusing on human happiness and social justice, not obedience to absolute religious principles or values.
Shaping the Content of Science: Have Religious Beliefs Played a Role?
Presenter: John Hedley Brooke
Stephen J.Gould’s NOMA principle is an attractive default position but is not itself value free. It has been enunciated in many forms in the past to defend the autonomy of science and/or the autonomy of religious belief. Consistent application of the principle has proved difficult in many contexts even for those who have adopted it. Gould himself, when speaking as a historian of science, declared that “facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it.” Since religious beliefs and practices are part of many cultural matrices, this would seem to open the door to the penetration of scientific thinking by religious predispositions. In this talk I shall discuss some of the historical examples used by Gould (Galileo, Thomas Burnet, James Hutton…) in order to expose the tensions between his writing as a scientist and as a historian of science. My examples will show that it is necessary to differentiate between various levels on which scientific and religious concerns might meet: there can be separation on some levels but not always on all. Could NOMA still be held up as a contemporary ideal despite the historical evidence? The controversy between Gould and Simon Conway Morris on the interpretation of the Burgess shale suggests that ideological, even religious, commitments may still shape theoretical preferences. In the final section I shall briefly review some of the ways in which religious beliefs have had a constructive bearing on the scientific enterprise, without, however, seeking to draw normative conclusions.
Gould's NOMA Theory and Its Problems: Compartmentalization vs Complementarity
Presenter: Job Kozhamthadam S.J.
Although Stephen Jay Gould’s NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria) model of science-religion relationship is a great improvement over the more traditional “conflict” or “warfare” model, it suffers from serious deficiencies. Basically NOMA is a modified version of the traditional “compartmentalist view,” best captured by the saying “When Faraday opens the door of his laboratory, he closes the door of his oratory.” It seems to me that Gould’s model is very much conditioned by the analytical, isolationist tradition. My findings show that such a model is inadequate to do justice to the relationship between highly complex systems like science and religion. Furthermore, many recent developments in science and parallel developments in the social and political fields reveal that progress is best achieved by a unified, integral approach. Certain aspects of the eastern tradition, particularly of the Indian tradition, lead to the same conclusion. In the light these considerations the paper will propose a complementarity model for science-religion relationship.
|
|
