Continuing my reflections on the relationship or relationships between theology and science, today I take a first look at the now classic typology or classification of the various possible relationships elaborated by Ian Barbour. Though that typology will be of primary importance in the coming postings, the remainder of this posting will focus on the troublesome version of one such possibility that showed up in today’s news.
Polkinghorne introduces Barbour’s typology in the following passage (Science and Theology, p. 20):
If science and theology really are, as has been claimed, partners in the great human quest to understand reality, then they are capable of interacting with each other. Ian Barbour has offered a useful classification of the various kinds of interactions that might arise.
To anticipate the topics of some postings to come, the four kinds of interaction are: conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration. Polkinghorne (pp. 20-21) describes the first, that of “conflict,” as one that arises with “totalitarian views of the scope of either science or theology.”
This occurs when either discipline threatens to take over the legitimate concerns of the other. Examples would be scientism (the assertion that the only meaningful questions to ask or possible to answer are scientific questions, thus claiming to abolish theological discourse altogether) or biblical literalism (the assertion that Genesis 1 and 2 provide an account of the origin of the universe and of life to which the scientific story must be made to conform in detail). Such totalitarian views of the scope of either science or theology have scant plausibility, being based on gross oversimplifications of the complexity and range of actual human knowledge and experience.
As we are well aware, both the scientism and the biblical literalism are alive and well; evidently some find them to have more than but “scant plausibility.” Of the two, the former is the much more challenging and will therefore require an extended discussion, one which I will provide in the future, God (?) willing. The latter, biblical literalism, is of comparatively little theoretical significance, but is of acute political significance. Thus the “particularly egregious form of one such possibility that showed up in today’s news” alluded to above.
That is, we can read in an article, “Creationist College Advances in Texas,” today’s Inside Higher Ed that:
Texas is fast becoming a key state not only in debates over evolution but over what kind of government scrutiny is important and legitimate when reviewing colleges with particular ideologies.
On Friday, an advisory committee to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board recommended that the state allow the Institute for Creation Research to start offering online master’s degrees in science education. The institute, which has been based in California, where it operates a museum and many programs for people who don’t believe in evolution, is relocating to Dallas, where it hopes to expand its online education offerings.
The article goes on to say:
Officials of the Institute for Creation Research could not be reached for comment, but there is extensive information about the institute’s programs on its Web site. The list of courses required for the master of science education includes a number that are fairly standard (“Advanced Educational Psychology” and “Instructional Design,” for example), but also some that are not.“
Advanced Studies in Creationism” features this description: “Scientific study of the creationist and evolutionist cosmologies; origin and history of the universe, of the solar systems, of life, of the various forms of life, and of man and his cultures. Critical analysis of both creation and evolutionary theory using data from paleontology, astronomy, biochemistry, genetics, thermodynamics, statistics, and other sciences. Study of geologic principles and earth history in the light of Creation and the Flood; scientific comparative studies of recent creation; application of principles of Biblical creationism in various fields.”
That language, and other comments made by institute officials, suggest that students would be exposed to the science of evolution. But other material on the institute’s Web site suggests that one could not teach or study at the institute while accepting the overwhelmingly broad scientific consensus about evolution.
Now, from the egregious to the poignant. National Public Radio’s Climate Connections series presented a report this morning on “Worries About Water as Chinese Glacier Retreats.”
The Tibetan plateau has been called “the roof of the world” and “the third pole” for its ice-covered peaks. There, global warming is happening faster than at other, lower altitudes, with serious consequences for hundreds of millions of people. China’s lowest glacier, the Mingyong glacier — an enormous, dirty, craggy mass of ice wedged in a mountain valley 8,900 feet above sea level — is melting. And as it melts, the glacier on the edge of the Tibetan plateau is retreating up the mountain faster than experts can believe.
That the “third pole” is seeing its ice melt is striking and laden with implications. But what also struck me, having reflected on the Institute for Creation Research’s plans, was an “interaction” of religion and science that the article noted but in passing.
The scientists must scramble over the rocky debris, known as the moraine — left behind after the ice has melted — to move closer to the snout, or lower end, of the glacier. Studying this ice mass is extremely difficult because local Tibetans see it as a sacred glacier, and they have banned people from touching or stepping on the ice. That rules out normal scientific practices like removing ice cores and sinking stakes in the ice to measure its retreat.
The Inside Higher Ed article can be found at:
http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/12/17/texas.
The Chronicle of Higher Education News Blog also covers the story, at:
The Inside Higher Ed article can be found at:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17200108.
December 18, 2007 at 4:06 am
Polkinghorne’s remark that science-religion conflict (from Barbour’s typology) “occurs when either discipline threatens to take over the legitimate concerns of the other” assumes that both science and religion do indeed have “legitimate concerns.” Science unquestionably does have legitimate concerns, and has taken over territory that in the past was widely (and erroneously) believed to be the concern of religion. The question for scientifically literate people is whether religion has any legitimate concerns at all. Polkinghorne’s take on “conflict” entirely begs this most important question.
December 20, 2007 at 2:51 am
Yes. It does indeed seem that the first question, apart from some preliminaries, that a theory purporting to bear upon the real needs to answer is that of whether or not its object exists. It is not evident that the object of theology exists in anything like the way that it is evident that the object of empirico-mathematical science (as I prefer to spell it out at least occasionally), i.e., physical reality, exists.
It is not immediately evident that the object of theology does not exist, on the other hand. Eventually I’ll take up the classical arguments either way.