Science & Religion
Workshop 13

Convenor: Mike Anderson (RSA)
Facilitator: Doug McGaughey (USA)
Tracker: JC Austin (USA)

Special meeting of South African Science and Religion Forum

The question of language

A divide exists for many people between two realities, faith and reason. We should instead speak of two discourses concerning the same reality. The example of Martin Buber’s ‘great divide’ was taken to illustrate a Cartesian bias for dualism and materialism: religion thus becomes ‘spiritual’ and concerned only with ethics. This approach is problematic for a number of reasons:

• It loses the experiential aspect of religious tradition.
• Science eventually becomes silent because its discourse seeks to speak with a pure empiricism.

However, even the most empirical language still speaks figuratively and metaphorically. More recent science, especially cosmology, becomes very figurative because it needs models to describe ideas of reality (for example, Stephen Hawking’s ‘mind of God’).

The question of context

The radical materialism of the West means that it is almost impossible to imagine a reality that is not, in some way, material. Hence, the conflict between science and religion in describing reality.

Evolution provides an example. Most people who oppose evolution do so because it threatens their religion, and this includes ‘Eastern’ religious traditions. But this might be a result of the process of the globalisation of consumerism/materialism, rather than something to do with an intrinsic conflict in understanding. It is noticeable that even people steeped deeply in Eastern traditions are inculcated with Western materialism. In fact, ‘Easterners’ might oppose evolution less because of religious objections than the rejection of what is read as a Western, materialist worldview which is contrary to Eastern culture.

The nature of knowledge and interpretation

In general, there is no such thing as final knowledge or definable universals. This fact should unite religion and science in realising the limited nature of their goals. There are different levels of knowledge and truth: /end p. 150/

• On a microcosmic level, one can deal with concrete facts and actions.
• On a macrocosmic level, the level of worldviews and overarching theories of interpretation, there is much more room for difference.

Also, there can be no knowledge (or fact) without some paradigm for interpretation. Furthermore, different paradigms share and interpret the same set of facts. Is there any escape from the paradigm of Western materialism? At the same time, one does not have to deny materialism in order to affirm a spiritual dimension; it is not an either/or choice.

The clash between science and religion

In general, there is a perceived clash in the South African context from both sides. Science can threaten the integrity of a whole cultural worldview, not simply religious understanding. It can threaten one’s very identity.

The dualism between ‘science’ and ‘religion’ is problematised. Black South Africans seem to have their own dichotomy between traditional religions and a world religion (Christianity, Islam), as well as between religion and modern science. Some black Africans have an affinity for science because it is a closed, cause and effect system similar to ‘traditional magic’, but object to its linear thinking that excludes spiritual reality.

The division within the two is often misunderstood or misconstrued. There need be no dichotomy between religion and science in the form of ‘faith’ and ‘reason’; science requires a lot of faith.

Ramifications for education

There is no knowledge without interest. Whose interest, then, is being served by promoting the notion of an irreconcilable clash between science and religion?

Science needs to be more critical of itself; ‘scientism’ is a very real danger. There is often considerable debate about how religion should be taught in schools, but scientists give little if any thought or guidance as to how science should be taught, especially evolution.

One problem with education is that it is organised around teaching independent ‘subjects’; there is no place to consider the interrelationships between disciplines.

Religious education needs to focus on the benefits of science and how these relate to the rest of life. Religious communities can be valuable contexts for discussing these issues, provided the leaders take an approach of respect and present options rather than try to disprove traditional conceptions.

One approach returns us to the language question: Can metaphorical language talk about something that is ‘real’? If one can convince people that it can, it is a way to harmonise Genesis with evolution. A way of uniting different worlds is recovering the metaphorical or figurative nature of language. Even literal language is the result of a figurative process that ends in dead metaphors.

Thomas Kuhn’s notion of paradigm shifts helps illustrate the interaction between paradigms competing to explain a set of facts. The biggest paradigm shift that affected religion was not from Darwin or Galileo, but Freud. Freud tapped into a pre-12^th century notion of the self, that its reality is mostly invisible and immeasurable (the unconscious). /end p. 151/

South African Science & Religion Forum

Convenor: Mike Anderson
Facilitator: Doug McGaughey
Trackers: Steve Baker & JC Austin

[In addition to this workshop, a special meeting of the South African Science & Religion Forum was held in conjunction with the ME99. Its discussions were linked to, and complementary to those of the workshop, and they are therefore printed here as well. —Editor]

Introduction

In an event linked to ME99, the South African Science and Religion Forum hosted a discussion for approximately 20 delegates. The intent of the session was to discuss the tension between science and theology, and in particular how it is dealt with in primary and secondary education in South Africa. The Forum discussion reflected many of the issues raised in the Science and Religion Leaders Workshop.

Key issues

Defining ‘science’?

• ‘What is science?’ Is it only a western construction?
• Science is a ‘community of tradition’. It may have different standards for testing and evaluating is received truths, but they are received truths nonetheless.
• Science cannot be understood as something separate from cultural and philosophical underpinnings.

Tension of competing worldviews

• The issue is clearly not only one of science and (Christian) religion, but of competing worldviews and philosophical presuppositions in a fast changing world.
• The tension between science and religion as part of western Christian worldview
• The reality of different worldviews, including a much more ‘mythological’ view of the world.
• The western tradition has lost respect for figurative language.

Issues of curricular reform

• Concern was expressed about the way differences in ‘worldviews’ were taken as irrelevant in a country where basic scientific aptitude among students is so poor.
• The idea that only ‘straight science’ be taught is however problematic. All science is subject to bias and interpretation and there can be no such thing as ‘pure science’ — as if science does not exist in a broader social context.

Suggestions for ways forward

• An inter-disciplinary approach between ‘science’ and ‘religion’ is needed. /end p. 152/
• A philosophical component to address the lack of critical thinking in South African schools is also needed.
• ‘Religion’ must be place on the curriculum.
• A broader definition of ‘scientific’ must be formulated. /end p. 153/