Of Course They Overlap
Timothy Sandefur on May 16th 2006
Thanks to Kuznicki for his mention of Gould’s “non-overlapping magesteria” theory. I’ve always thought this was a fine example of big, fine-sounding words covering up sheer nonsense. Of course the “magesteria” of religion and science overlap, and not just in the area of naturalistic claims about the phenomena of the universe. They overlap in the realm of epistemology, too. That is, science and religion as ways of knowing compete with each other—i.e., they overlap. Either you believe that things must be established as true based on reason and logical extrapolation from observed phenomena, or you think it’s okay to believe in things on the basis of no reason at all. Of course, as Eugenie Scott says, there are lots of people who profess both epistemological positions. But these people are simply bigamists of the intellect.
To me, this is a far more important issue—far, far more important—than the issue of whether children come to believe in the fact that natural selection designed the human physical structure. In the end, who cares whether they believe the latter? What we ought to care about, however, is whether our children are raised to think critically, and to demand reasons, or whether they are content to believe in things in the absence of reasons (i.e., faith). These are the real stakes at issue in the controversy between evolution and creationism. This is the real gold that everyone’s fighting about. As Carl Sagan said,
If we teach only the findings and products of science—no matter how useful and even inspiring they may be—without communicating its critical method, how can the average person possibly distinguish science from pseudoscience? Both then are presented as unsupported assertion. In Russia and China, it used to be easy. Authoritative science was what the authorities taught. The distinction between science and pseudoscience was made for you. No perplexities needed to be muddled through. But when profound political changes occurred and strictures on free thought were loosened, a host of confident or charismatic claims—especially those that told us what we wanted to hear—gained a vast following. Every notion, however improbable, became authoritative.
It is a supreme challenge for the popularizer of science to make clear the actual, tortuous history of its great discoveries and the misapprehensions and occasional stubborn refusal by its practitioners to change course. Many, perhaps most, science textbooks for budding scientists treat lightly here. It is enormously easier to present in an appealing way the wisdom distilled from centuries of patient and collective interrogation of Nature than to detail the messy distillation apparatus. The method of science, as stodgy and grumpy as it may seem, is far more important than the findings of science.
Filed in The Belfry, The Biosphere
[...] In the recent discussion on the “opposition” between religion and scientific Mr Sandefur at Positive Liberty finishes the little debate engaged in over the course of few posts. Implicit in their discussion is that religion and science are at odds, which is may be an idea which is confirmed by beliefs in popular culture but isn’t part of my religion or at least my understanding of Christanity. This is, as I imply in my title, a frontal assault on a straw fortress. There is an implicit assumption that religious tradition and scientific enquiry are at odds. That assumption is wrong. I wrote briefly about this here. There, against my argument, I note that there has been a modern luddite/anti-intellectual movement in modern evangelical Christianity, but this First Things some time ago pointed out is in a reversal. In a recent article (which I’m having trouble locating but it was I think in 2004-5) Mark Noll, author of Scandal of the Evangalical Mind noted that of late there have been signs of a reversal of the anti-intellectual roots of the early 20th century American Evangelical movement. My usual response to this straw man argument, ie., that science and religion are a loggerheads, I oft quote Augustine in the Confessions. Today I chanced upon another. A lesser known, but still influential early Christian Father (especially in the Eastern tradition) Evagrius Ponticus. In a translation of Ad Monachos the translater tells us that Evagrius taught that the mind (of man) was meant for knowledge. Of knowledge the highest form of knowing is understanding of the Trinity (bear with me). But the physicki (Greek fonts aren’t going to happen today sorry) lies just under that. Physicki is the contemplation of created things. It is useful to note that this is not observation or enjoyment of the wonders of nature (though it does not exclude that) but primarily is reasons (logoi) with which the Logos has constructed the world, that is Physics. So with Evagrius we find have a 4th century desert monastic writing and teaching that scientific endeavor is among the highest things which one might perform. And Evagrius wasn’t thinking this in a vaccum, he was part of a strong Hellenistic Christian 4th century tradition. [...]
[...] “A writer I know once called it ‘intellectual bigamy.’ Even his friends gave him grief for that one,” said the Skeptic. “And yet I can’t help but agree.” [...]