Religion, Science, and Owen Barfield
The Conversationalist — By danstrau on February 12, 2010 at 6:51 pmTo my delight, he Church of England just voted nearly unanimously for a motion that says science and religion are compatible:
“Launching the debate, a computer scientist, Dr Peter Capon of Manchester diocese, said: “We wish to refute the perception that you have to choose between science and faith … the crude caricature of faith as being blind and irrational. We reject the ’scientism’ that claims that, in principle, science can resolve all questions capable of being answered.
“Most scientists accept that philosophy, theology and the humanities are alive and well and give insights and understanding that complement but are not replaced by scientific understanding.””
This is fantastic news and a great strike back at the likes of Richard Dawkins. The Catholics under Pope John Paul II have already made similar moves, but the really nice thing about the Church of England’s announcement is that it comes from Dawkins’ home country. He should listen to what these people are saying (though he won’t, of course). This isn’t just about Dawkins, though – it’s important for big religious organizations to step up and deny the myth that religion is simply irrationality and superstition, to affirm that it makes a valuable contribution to life.
There is a problem, though: in what way, exactly, is religion compatible with science? For those inclined to think about this sort of thing, there’s an interesting philosophical position you can check out called scientific instrumentalism. Instrumentalism basically says that scientific descriptions of the world are merely useful, not necessarily true. It’s a fascinating position and one that doesn’t get a lot of play, but I think it goes a long way toward reconciling many of the sticking points between science and religion. If you’re interested, a good place to start investigating is Owen Barfield’s Saving the Appearances. It’s not a super-easy read, and it treats many different topics, but that’s all a small price to pay (in my opinion) to delve into some fascinating ideas on science, consciousness, and reality.
–Aaron Bekemeyer
3 Comments
“I like to think that the message that should be taken is:”
sorry, I have a bad habit of proofreading AFTER I hit submit
Science and religion in the PUREST sense are completely and undoubtedly imcompatible. And there isn’t a single professional text that anyone will be able to find otherwise (except for the rogue scientists)… however, they will never be found in the purest sense.
Looking at Dan Brown’s Angels and Demons, I like the message that needs to be taken is: “religion has withstood the test of time, and so has science, so there needs to be compromise and communication”.
Dawkins may be firm and convincing in his philosophy, but he is utterly stupid when it comes to compromise and communication. Dawkins doesn’t need to change his views, I agree with his views, but Dawkins needs to learn how to talk to people.
Aaron, I’ve come to realize that communication boils down to connotation, and Dawkins isn’t as ignorant or non-knowledgeable as you say he is… but he is INCREDIBLY BAD AT COMMUNICATING HIS OPINIONS TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. His extremist statements are oftentimes taken out of context (because he sets them up that way to have confrontation) and used against atheism.
Dawkins is far too confrontational about his views, he should come to realize that if he actually tried making a public appeal to the church, they might actually listen and start compromising on science.
Elton
Interesting remarks about Dawkins, Elton. I’m curious, though as to what you mean by science and religion in their “purest” forms – what sort of purity are you getting at?