The Meteorite
Among the hills a meteorite
Lies huge; and moss has overgrown,
And wind and rain with touches light
Made soft, the contours of the stone.
Thus easily can Earth digest
A cinder of sidereal fire,
And make her translunary guest
The native of an English shire.
Nor is it strange these wanderers
Find in her lap their fitting place,
For every particle that's hers
Came at the first from outer space.
All that is Earth has once been sky;
Down from the sun of old she came,
Or from some star that travelled by
Too close to his entangling flame.
Hence, if belated drops yet fall
From heaven, on these her plastic power
Still works as once it worked on all
The glad rush of the golden shower.
-C. S. Lewis, Miracles
Introduction
As a pluralistic society, America is populated with great cohorts of both religious and non-religious people of all types. America has the highest rate of religiosity in the developed world; however, recent polls show that the majority of Americans know very little about religion, not enough to be considered “literate” by the lowest standards. Several books have recently been published which aim to educate the American populace about this very important aspects of human experience (e.g. Religious Literacy: what every American needs to know and doesn’t, by Stephen Prothero). When we examine America’s literacy in the sciences, we find startlingly similar low rates of basic knowledge. Add to this abundance of ignorance a plethora of pseudoscience campaigns which offer a “bridge” between religion and science, such as those by Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute, which seek to introduce “Intelligent Design” (I.D.) into high school biology curricula, and intolerance to non-protestant ideas (secular and religious) which continue to flourish in our society, and the result is a lot of angry rhetoric, and even more confusion. In Science Matters: Achieving Scientific Literacy, the authors Robert Hazen and James Trefil define scientific literacy in this way:
If you can understand the news of the day as it relates to science,
if you can take articles with headlines about stem cell research and the
greenhouse effect and put them in a meaningful context—in short, if you can
treat news about science in the same way that you treat everything else that
comes over your horizon, then as far as we are concerned you are scientifically
literate (Introduction, pg xii)
While the authors hold that the main culprit behind America’s lack of scientific understanding lies in the faulty educational system, they mostly ignore another very important factor behind this large problem, that of religious “skepticism” of science and its theories. Religious people have a deep mistrust of science, a mistrust that is reciprocated by the scientific community for religion. It is fair to say that nothing less than a chasm separates the two camps in the public view.
Other polls demonstrate that over 50% of those in academia and industry who do science, consider themselves “spiritual,” not necessarily affiliated with any particular religion, but still consider spirituality important. Other distinguished scientists, including Francisco Ayala, Francis Collins, Ian Barbour and Kenneth Miller, are outwardly religious or have defended the ability of religion and science to co-exist without conflict. Ian Barbour has established a vernacular to distinguish the four main approaches to the Science-Religion interaction: Conflict, Independence, Integration, and Dialogue. He distinguishes himself as a proponent of dialogue with hope for integration. The prevalence of atheism and agnosticism is higher among academics, especially among scientists, compared to the general population; however, there remain influential scientists who maintain there is no incompatibility between their personal beliefs and the picture of reality that science paints. The unique perspectives of these men and women force us to re-evaluate our traditional views about the apparent conflict between science and religion.
While every individual must resolve for themselves the conflicts they perceive between their personal beliefs and the facts of science, metaphysics is a useful, and perhaps even a necessary tool in forging a compatible worldview between them. The use of metaphysics in constructing a philosophy which combines science and religion to answer the “big questions,” such as what is the nature of reality, the purpose of life, et cetera, can bring one closer to the dialogue position, if not to integration itself (Hefner, 2007).
Metaphysics
The word metaphysics comes from the Greek for “beyond the physical” (meta = beyond, physic = physical). In philosophy, metaphysics began as an attempt to answer absolute questions about reality and the nature of essential forms. What we call “science” began as a branch of natural philosophy, and since its divergence has become a very different enterprise from the mode of dialectic seen in traditional philosophy. However, the roots of its ancestry run deep, and even the most empirical sciences (i.e. Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry) are not free of metaphysical assumptions, and the softer sciences (i.e. Biology, Psychology, Sociology) are rife with them! When it comes to religion, metaphysics has historically been a central theme in the writings of theologians who construct entire cosmogonies based on metaphysical assumptions about the universe, the nature of man, and God.
In science and philosophy, a common approach to problems is found in methodological naturalism. This method assumes that all phenomena are explicable and investigable only in terms of natural laws and evidence, and while careful not to exclude the possibility of the supernatural, remains nonetheless uninterested in its existence and application. This is essentially an agnostic worldview, consistent with the independence position. In reference to this stance, the famed biologist Stephen J. Gould coined the term “Non Overlapping Magisteria” (NOMA) to describe how matters of supernatural (i.e. spiritual) significance are unrelated and totally separate from matters of natural and physical importance (i.e. science, naturalism, etc.).
Moving beyond the realm of simple methodology, we find metaphysical naturalism—a worldview which holds that nothing exists except the material and natural. This view has its roots in the enlightenment and logical positivism, and currently can be observed in the message of new atheism, and to a lesser extent in the humanist movement. This view places supreme importance on scientific inquiry as the only means of gaining knowledge, and is at odds with any system of belief which takes for granted a supernatural being or power operating in the universe, or making contact with man. It is consistent with the conflict position.
In response to this, a separate class of conflict exists for religious people who believe the universe is contained within God, who transcends the natural and has the power to intervene at will in the universe (i.e. miracles), and maintain that any strict materialist explanation of the universe is fundamentally flawed. And so the four positions which began as a spectrum have come full-circle, and can be viewed better as a non-linear continuum with significant overlap between the categories. The practical differences between methodological and metaphysical naturalism are so small that one must ask, “is it possible to be a methodological naturalist without being a metaphysical one also?” A devout believer in supernaturalism would say, “No! Both leave no room for God.” But the scientific believer is forced to offer a solution to this apparent dilemma.
Bridging the Gap
It is apparent from this telling of the relationship between naturalist and supernaturalist metaphysical systems, that anyone who wishes to integrate a belief in God with a scientific worldview which assumes naturalism (either in methodology or in absolute terms) is faced with no small challenge! Three strategies that have been described seeking to accomplish this feet are Natural Theology, Theology of Nature, and Systematic Synthesis. The first of these is the most well known, and has been argued in three different ways; 1) the argument from design, 2) the cosmological argument, and 3) the ontological argument.
In his book Metaphysics, Peter Van Inwagen addresses the first of these arguments under the classification of teleology (teleos = “end” or “purpose” in Greek), implying a purpose and ultimate cause for the existence of the universe and man. He appeals to the strong anthropic principle (SAP), that the 20-something constants of the cosmos are set to arbitrary values which could vary, in theory, to produce multiple “cosmoi,” each with vastly different physical properties. Very few of these resulting cosmoi (less than one in two million) would be hospitable to the formation of heavy atoms and life, and ours incidentally is one of those rare few (pg 172-182). The I.D. movement is another current example of this argument. In brief, the argument from design states that the universe, and living things, have an “appearance” of order, fine tuning, and design which necessitates a designer. This argument has come under attack by scientists who have demonstrated that natural processes, including evolution, are fully capable of producing the order and “appearance of design” which we see in life, and the universe.
The cosmological argument can be summarized as the need for a linear chain of causation for every event in the universe, requiring a primal mover or original cause. Physics portends to supply this original cause with the Big Bang and M Theory. Recent works by experts in the field, such as Stephen Hawking, claim to have solved the problem of original cause by showing that the Big Bang was a natural and spontaneous event, not requiring an outside force to occur. If true, this would render what was once believed to be the “safest” of the three arguments to falsifiability and the realm of scientific inquiry, removing the need for God and any supernatural metaphysical explanation about the origin of the universe.
The last argument, the ontological, states briefly that God is beyond the highest capacity of the human mind to conceive; therefore, in order for us to conceive of him at all, he must exist by necessity. Ontological proofs are often impossible to obtain, except in mathematics, and few have courted the ontological proof since the neoclassical philosophers, all of whom found establishing this proof to be a difficult challenge, and later generations have recognized their arguments as little better than tautologies. The remaining approaches toward integration (Theology of Nature and Systematic Synthesis) are still in their infancy, and not nearly as developed as Natural Theology.
A Different View
The philosopher Michael Ruse’s depiction of Barbour’s four archetypes in his dialogue Evolution and Religion, provides a good overview of the different positions, but falls short of doing each justice. A significant failing is his depiction of the integrationist, Rev. Emily Matthews, as a flaky, new-agey cherry-picker, who uses her philosophical terms a little fast and loose. In this portrayal, it is difficult to see through the “aura” around Emily and discern the true value of her positions, especially in regards to Process Theology as a means of integration (pgs. 46, 65, 88, 101). Developed by Alfred North Whitehead, Process Philosophy was later applied to theology by Charles Hartshorne and John Cobb. This novel approach to the integration problem posits God as being encompassed by nature, a product of natural processes and not vice versa. It requires the sacrifice of the “Omnimax” principle (the omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence of God) in order to solve the problem of evil (theodicy), and the changing nature of religion. Process Theology explains that God, as part of nature, uses natural means over which he has influence to do his work in the cosmos.
Another similar approach that does not get the attention it deserves is that of Theistic Evolution, which believes evolution is the mechanism by which God created life here on earth, and by which he could do so in other worlds hospitable to life. This view is espoused by many faithful scientists, such as Ken Miller who believes it is through the medium of small changes (on the quantum scale) that God directs mutation in DNA and adaptation leading to speciation and diversity (pgs. 198-209). The most obvious problem with this view is that it is still essentially a “God of the gaps” argument (i.e. where science fails to explain, insert God and miracles). This also means that if science ever fully explains these phenomena at the quantum level, God will be left with no other natural medium through which to function.
In support of this view, that God works through the medium of nature, theologian Nicola Hoggard Creegan posits a system in which God participates in the act of creation and evolution, and because of his “Trinitarian” nature (hidden, felt, and incarnate) the effects of his participation are obscured behind secondary evolutionary causes; however, they are there and can be discerned by the feelings of awe and wonder associated with a study of nature, and this provides the evidence of God’s love and existence which Christian piety requires (pgs. 499-518). Yet another interesting support of this view comes from the philosopher Lynne Rudder Baker, in her book Metaphysics for Everyday Life. Baker uses the term “Quasi-Naturalism” to describe the way in which people, as products of evolutionary processes, transcend the natural, animal order and become ontologically unique (as theists claim that God is) through the exercise of reason and thought (pgs. 9-12). She explains that Quasi-Naturalism is different than metaphysical naturalism because it leaves the door open for different ways of “knowing” (epistemology) other than scientific endeavors, and remains neutral on the metaphysical claim that nature is all there is to reality. This system remains naturalistic by accepting the established facts of science (11). In this way, she establishes a clear difference between methodology and metaphysical assertions about the universe.
The Altonatural
Returning to terminology, the term “supernatural” is thus shown to be an inappropriate adjective for the God of Theistic Evolution and Process Theology. Perhaps a better term might be altonatural (from the Latin altus for “high” or “exalted”). By bringing God within the realm of the natural, these worldviews do not deny His exalted status; only question the metaphysical nature of that status. If Superman were real and his powers fully comprehensible via scientific methods, that would not diminish the awe and reverence of those who his benevolence protected. Indeed, one would be truly pressed to differentiate between such a God and the God of the Nicene Creed or the Koran while standing in His presence!
In reference to the poem at the beginning of this essay, the famed theologian and author C. S. Lewis writes of a meteor (believed in ancient times to be a tangible sign of God’s power) which falls from heaven and becomes an indistinguishable part of the natural landscape. In his book Miracles, he goes on to argue that it always thus with miracles; when they occur they are inexplicable, but the world keeps going as if nothing special has happened, assimilating the newcomer and leaving no evidence of divine intervention (Introduction, -ii). Thus it is incumbent upon the believer to hold this as evidence for faith, or not—God will not give him/her the “proof” that would make the personal choice to believe un-necessary (293-294).
Climbing Mt. Improbable
As we come to the end of this exposition, the question remains, “Why bother trying to make a compatible worldview? It’s hard; the ideas are abstract and obscure; and what will it profit me?” After all, to truly forge such a view would also require that one be literate in both religion and science (not to mention philosophy), and not only literate but have a deep and abiding understanding of both and where they can meet. It could also be argued that to have such an understanding of either of these important aspects of experience, a detached appreciation may not be sufficient to produce the depth of understanding required—that one must do religion and science, and believe both to understand them. For example, how can a student truly understand the implications of evolutionary theory, if during every lecture and experiment he/she is holding back their scientific “faith?” This, I feel, is a strong incentive to create a compatible worldview.
More and more modern professions, such as medicine, engineering and computer science, require a depth of understanding in the related scientific fields not previously necessary to achieve the task at hand. This is to say nothing of the current global problems that we face, such as vanishing biodiversity, global warming, the threat of nuclear war, and the need for political leaders to understand science. Contrary to the idea proposed by many scientists and politicians during the 20th century—that religion would recede out of the public mind and give way to secular and scientific thought—religion does not seem to be going anywhere. In fact, its modern day influence can hardly be overstated. But if religion continues to oppose itself to science, as if the two are at war, this can only end badly for religion. Either way, a deeper understanding of both is required if the two are to co-exist.
Contemporary writers have described the metaphysical quest to understand the universe with the analogy of “Climbing Mt. Improbable.” The mountain, like Yosemite’s Half Dome, has two faces: one, a smooth, sheer, and impossible cliff that nothing short of a miracle would enable a person to climb; the other, a more gradual slope, difficult to climb, but possible with the right skills and gear. I imagine, with Dr. Miller, that when the science troupe arrives at the summit, they will be greeted by the religious troupe, and be surprised they were not the first to the top. But until that day, our best chance of climbing the mountain for ourselves is to use metaphysics as the rope with which to belay-repel, with science and religion bound together, and let go of the distrust and fear. We will get there sooner, and better, if we do it together.
References
Baker, Lynne Rudder. 2008. The Metaphysics of Everyday Life: An essay in practical realism. Accessed on December 14, 2010 en: http://people.umass.edu/lrb/files/bak08perM.pdf
Creegan, Nicola Hoggard. 2007. A christian theology of evolution and participation. Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science 42 (2) (06): 499-518.
Hefner, Philip. 2007. Science and the big questions. Vol. 42Wiley-Blackwell.
Lewis, C. S. Miracles; a preliminary study. New York, Macmillan Co., 1947
Miller, Kenneth R. Finding Darwin's God : a scientist's search for common ground between God and Evolution. New York : Perennial/HarperCollins, 2002. 1st. Perennial ed.
Ruse, Michael. Evolution and religion: a dialogue. Lanham, Md. : Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, c2008.
Van Inwagen, P. Metaphysics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 1993. rev. ed. 2002
No comments:
Post a Comment