St. Joseph Church
Bristol, Connecticut

Deacon Robert M. Pallotti
Pastoral Minister

Models for Understanding the Emerging Relationship
Between Religion and Science

Since the dawn of the modern age of science in the West, beginning in the late 16^th century and blossoming in the "Enlightenment" period to the present, the disciplines associated with religion and science have related to each other in ways that can be illustrated by four models. These four models are introduced by scientist and theologian, Ian Barbour in his book entitled, Religion In An Age of Science.

Barbour sees the relationship between religion and science in the context of the following four models, Conflict, Separation, Dialogue and Integration. 1 When engaging scientists, theologians or the general public persons will respond to questions concerning religion and science from out of the context of these models through which they interpret their experience in the world. In effect, that model becomes their paradigm, or major model through which they interpret the relationship between religion and science.

Conflict

The Conflict model presumes that the approaches to reality by religion and science are in constant conflict. One must choose either religion or science as the worldview by which to come to truth. Religion and science in this model have no common ground and are mutually exclusive spheres of life often antagonistic to each other.

This condition of conflict manifests itself in a Biblical Literalism and/or rigid dogmatism in religion. In science this manifests itself in a scientific materialism that subscribes to an agnostic or atheistic view of the world. One could summarize the relationship between religion and science as Never the twain shall meet

Both of these manifestations of the conflict model share several characteristics. 2

Both believe there are serious conflicts between contemporary science and classical religious beliefs.

Both seek knowledge with a sure foundation—that of logic and sense data, in the one case, that of infallible scripture, in the other.

They both claim that science and theology make rival literal statements about the same domain, the history of nature, so that one must choose between them.

Both positions fail to observe the proper boundaries of science. The scientific materialist starts from science but ends by making broad philosophical claims. The biblical literalist moves from theology to make claims about scientific matters. In both schools of thought the differences between the two disciplines are not adequately respected. 3

The scientific method is the only reliable path to knowledge.

Matter (or matter and energy) is the fundamental reality of the universe.

Biblical Literalism

There have been a variety of views of scripture through out the history of Christianity. St. Augustine held that when there appears to be a conflict between demonstrated scientific knowledge and a literal reading of the Bible, the latter should be considered interpreted metaphorically, as in the case of the first chapter in Genesis. 4 Mainline Christian churches, Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox hold that Holy Scripture is divinely inspired but not to be taken literally in every section. These churches maintain that the Scripture must be interpreted through the use of various biblical criticisms such as, Form, Source and Redaction criticism. They also maintain that not to do so would be to impose on the text a meaning that may not be what intended by the biblical authors.

Biblical literalists accept the text at face value projecting modern concepts of reality unto the text. Consequently, scientific theories such as evolution enter into immediate conflict with Genesis 1 and 2.

Independence

This model avoids conflict between religion and science by adhering to the belief that each discipline has its won distinctive domain and methods that have nothing to do with each other.5 Such an approach is characterized by an ontic dualism that separates spirit and matter.

In this model science is free to carry out its work without reference to receiving permission to do so from organized religion. Religion maintains that science has nothing to do with the truth claims of God’s revelation as understood by organized religion—especially concerning the prophetic character of the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Typical of this model is the understanding that religion and science use different "language games." Therefore, we should not expect things from science that belong to the "language game" of religion and vice versa.6 This idea that each discipline adheres to its own "language game" with concepts and manners of communication unique to each discipline was introduced by philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein.

This philosopher noted that every discipline approaches reality differently and has developed concepts and symbols, i.e., modes of communication to express the experience of reality congruent with that disciplines objectives. The implication of his thought for religion and science are obvious. For any member of either discipline to pronounce about a matter not of that member’s mode of communication is for that person to usurp an authority not their own!

Dialogue

In this model science and religion communicate in areas of investigation and experience of reality that appear to intersect. One such area of interest is what the theologian David Tracy refers to as "boundary or limit questions." Boundary questions arise from those experiences that cannot be adequately understood or addresses by human language. Such experiences would include the mystery of death, the origins of the universe, why evolution, why life at all, why anything exists at all?

David Tracy also sees a religious dimension in science. He holds that religious questions arise at the horizons or limit situations of human experience. 7 Such things as anxiety and confrontation with death, as well as joy and basic trust are examples of these horizons or limit situations. For science he describes two kinds of limit situations: ethical concerns in the use of science, and presuppositions or conditions for the possibility of scientific inquiry. 8

There are also methodological parallels between religion and science as noted by Ian Barbour.

Science, it appeared, is not objective, nor religion as subjective, as had been claimed. There may be differences of emphasis between the fields, but the distinctions are not as absolute as had been asserted. Scientific data are theory-laden, not theory free. Theoretical assumptions enter the selection, reporting, and interpretation of what are taken to be data. Moreover, theories do not arise from logical analysis of data but from acts of creative imagination in which analogies and models often play a role. Conceptual models help us to imagine what is not directly observable. 9

Barbour goes on to compare this phenomenon in scientific thought with the reflective enterprise in religion—theology.

Clearly, religious beliefs are not amenable to strict empirical testing, but they can be approached with some of the same spirit of inquiry found in science.10

For science very few things are absolutely provable. Science places emphasis on the task of "falsification" of data. In other words, through the use of the scientific method and critical questioning from other horizons or theoretical assumptions the data is rigorously interrogated to see if it can stand up to such a critique. A generally accepted theory becomes a paradigm or primary model when it offers the best and widest explanation of the observable phenomenon. However, when a paradigm shifts in science, or any discipline, new assumptions, models, and concepts replace or build on the previous paradigm and its assumptions models and concepts. 11

Some problems with the dialogue model 12

In an attempt to legitimate religion in an age of science, it is tempting to dwell on similarities and pass over differences. Although science is indeed a more theory-laden enterprise, it is clearly more objective than religion. The kinds of data from which religion draws are radically different from those in science, and the possibility of testing religious beliefs is more limited.

In reacting to the absolute distinctions presented by the adherents of the "Independence" thesis, it would be easy to minimize the distinctive features of religion. In particular, by treating religion as an intellectual system and talking only about religious beliefs, one may distort the diverse characteristics of religion as a way of life, which the linguistic analysts have so well described. Religious belief must always be seen in the context of the life of the religious community and in relation to the goal of personal transformation.

Consideration of methodology is an important but preliminary task in the dialogue of science and religion. If theology at its best is a reflective enterprise that can develop and grow, it can be open to new insights, including those derived from the theories of science.

Integration

There are scientists and theologians that hold that some sort of integration is possible between the content of theology and the content of science. In natural theology, it is claimed that the existence of God can be inferred from the evidences of design in nature—of which science has made us more aware.13 Astrophysicists such as Paul Davies and Freemon Dyson raise such ideas. Freeman Dyson puts it this way:

I conclude from the existence of these accidents of physics and astronomy that the universe is an unexpectedly hospitable place for living creatures to make their home in. Being a scientist, trained in the habits of thought and language of the twentieth century rather that the eighteenth, I do not claim that the architecture of the universe proves the existence of God. I claim only that the architecture of the universe is consistent with the hypothesis that mind plays an essential role in its functioning. 14

Cosmologists often speak of the "anthropic cosmological principle" when referring to intelligent design of the universe. There are two versions of this principle used by cosmologists. The first is the "strong" anthropic principle that says all creation was designed to bring forth the self-conscious creatures, human beings. It holds that the foundations of the universe are such that we were programmed into creation. The other version, or "weak" anthropic principle states that conditions were such that is possible and suitable for life and eventually humanity to come into being. Both versions hold that the universe was designed for the emergence of mind or consciousness.

Process theologians have picked up on such scientific theories and have formulated concepts of God, salvation, etc…. using a dynamic and evolutionary model of God’s activity in the world. The writings of Jesuit paleontologist Teilhard de Chardin, theologians John Cobb and David Griffin among others, are pioneering new models under the influence of the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead. This new theological enterprise has resurrected Judeo-Christian concepts of stewardship, the dynamic nature of God’s activity and human development and the implications for the social order and cosmological completion from the Scriptures.

Footnotes

1. Ian Barbour, Religion In An Age Of Science Vol. I (San Francisco: Harper-Collins, 1990) ,pp. 4-30

2. Barbour, op.cit., p. 4

3. Barbour, op. cit., p. 4

4. Barbour, op. cit. P. 8 and John Polkinghorne, The Faith Of A Physicist (New Jersey: Princeton University press, 1994), pp. 30-50.

5. Barbour, op. cit., pp. 7-10

6. Barbour, op. cit., p. 13 and Hans Kung, On Being A Christian (New York: Doubleday, 1974).

7. Barbour, op. cit., p.20 and David Tracy, Blessed Rage For Order (New York: Seabury, 1975).

8. Barbour, op. cit., p. 20 and 272, and Edward Schillebeeckx, Christ: The Experience Of Jesus As Lord (New York: Crossroad, 1981).

9. Barbour, op. cit.pp. 20-21

10. Barbour, op. cit., p. 21

11. Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2d ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970).

12. Barbour, op. cit., p. 23

13. Paul Davies, God and the New Physics (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983), chapter 8, and 12.

14. Freeman Dyson, Disturbing the Universe (New York: Harper and Row, 1979), p.250.

Compiled by Deacon Robert M. Pallotti, D. Min.
Created 8/11/2000