The relationship between religion and science takes many forms as the two fields are both broad. They employ different methods and address sometimes different questions. The scientific method relies on an objective approach to measure, calculate, and describe the natural/physical/material universe. Religious methods are more subjective (or intersubjective in community), relying on varying notions of authority, ideas believed to have been revealed, intuition, belief in the supernatural, individual experience, or a combination of these to understand the universe.
Historically, science has had a complex relationship with religion; religious doctrines and motivations have sometimes influenced scientific development, while scientific knowledge has had effects on religious beliefs.
Perspectives on the historical relationship between religion and science
The kinds of interactions that might arise between science and religion have been classified by John Polkinghorne FRS as:
- Conflict when either discipline threatens to take over the legitimate concerns of the other
- Independence treating each as quite separate realms of enquiry.
- Dialogue suggesting that each field has things to say to each other about phenomena in which their interests overlap.
- Integration aiming to unify both fields into a single discourse.
Polkinghorne further suggests that 3 and 4 can be classified in terms of:
- a. Consonance The two fields retain due autonomies, but the statements they make must be capable of appropriate reconciliation with each other without strain
- b. Assimilation An attempt at the maximum possible conceptual meeting. Neither is absorbed totally by the other, but they are brought closely together.
Conflict Thesis
The 19th century was a period in which the perception of an antagonism between religion and science was especially strong. During this period what scholars today call the historical conflict thesis developed. According to this model, any interaction between religion and science almost inevitably would lead to open hostility, with religion taking the part of the aggressor against new scientific ideas. This view was popularized in the 19th century by John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White. However, neither of these views adequately accounts for the variety of interactions between science and religion (both historically and today), ranging from antagonism to separation to close collaboration.
The framing of the relationship between religion and science as being predominantly one of conflict remained common in the historiography of science during the late 19th and much of the 20th centuries, was favoured by many scientists in the last 100 years, and is still prevalent in popular culture. However, most contemporary historians of science now reject it, considering that the conflict thesis has been superseded by subsequent historical research, as is expressed by Gary Ferngren in his historical volume Science & Religion:
While some historians had always regarded the [conflict] thesis as oversimplifying and distorting a complex relationship, in the late twentieth century it underwent a more systematic reevaluation. The result is the growing recognition among historians of science that the relationship of religion and science has been much more positive than is sometimes thought. Although popular images of controversy continue to exemplify the supposed hostility of Christianity to new scientific theories, studies have shown that Christianity has often nurtured and encouraged scientific endeavour, while at other times the two have co-existed without either tension or attempts at harmonization. If Galileo and the Scopes trial come to mind as examples of conflict, they were the exceptions rather than the rule.
Many well-known historical figures who influenced Western science considered themselves Christian such as Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Boyle.
A degree of concord between science and religion can be seen in theistic belief and empirical science. The belief that God created the world and therefore humans, can lead to the view that he arranged for humans to know the world. This is underwritten by the doctrine of imago dei. In the words of Thomas Aquinas, "Since human beings are said to be in the image of God in virtue of their having a nature that includes an intellect, such a nature is most in the image of God in virtue of being most able to imitate God".
Today, much of the scholarship in which the conflict thesis was based is considered to be inaccurate. For instance, a claim that was first propagated in the same period that originated the conflict thesis is the supposition that the Catholic Church from the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat, and that only science, freed from religious dogma, had shown that it was round. This claim was mistaken, as the contemporary historians of science David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers write: "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference."
Independence
A modern view, described by Stephen Jay Gould as "non-overlapping magisteria" (NOMA), is that science and religion deal with fundamentally separate aspects of human experience and so, when each stays within its own domain, they co-exist peacefully.[10]
Cultivation of early modern science due to a biblical world view
In The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry historian of science H. Floris Cohen presents scholarship arguing for a Biblical (and particularly Puritan Protestant, but not excluding Catholicism nor the Greco-Islamic tradition[not in citation given]) influence on the early development of modern science.
While Cohen states that most scholars reject crude articulations of the conflict thesis, such as Andrew D. White's, he also states that milder versions of this thesis still hold some sway. This is because "it remains an incontrovertible fact of history that, to say the least, the new science was accorded a less than enthusiastic acclaim by many religious authorities at the time."
Hooykaas argument
The Dutch historian R. Hooykaas argues that a Biblical world-view holds all the necessary antidotes for the hubris of Greek rationalism: a respect for manual labour, leading to experimentation and a greater level of empiricism and a supreme God that left nature "de-deified" and open to emulation and manipulation.[11] [12]
This, the more recently proposed of these two arguments, gives support to the idea that the rise of early modern science was due to a unique combination of Greek and biblical thought. In his book Religion and the Rise of Modern Science, Hooykaas reaches the conclusion that "Metaphorically speaking, whereas the bodily ingredients of science may have been Greek, its vitamins and hormones were biblical." Cohen gives this conclusion along with another quote--"In this voluntaristic way of thinking, the order of nature was not our logical order, but that willed by God." (italics appear to be Cohen's)--as specific examples of how Hooykaas generally illustrates the biblical world-view and its effects on history.
Merton argument
Put forth in 1935 and 1938 by Robert K. Merton, it was the first effort to link the emergence of early modern science with a biblical worldview and is now known as the Merton thesis--similar in structure to the economic theory known as the Weber thesis. The Merton thesis links the rise of early modern science to the Protestant ethic without mention of the Greco-Islamic tradition.
Westfall counter-argument
H. Floris Cohen also notes that the Richard S. Westfall argues that the influence was not unidirectional, and quotes Westfall:
Despite the natural piety of the virtuosi [English 17th-century scientists], the skepticism of the Enlightenment was already present in embryo among them. To be sure, their piety kept it in check, but they were unable to banish it. ... They wrote to refute atheism, but where were the atheists? The virtuosi nourished the atheists within their own minds.
The attitudes of religion towards science
Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all developed many centuries prior to the modern era; their classical works show an appreciation of the natural world, but most of them express little or no interest in any systematic investigation of it for its own sake. However, Buddhism's investigation of Dharma precludes the use of numerous non-systematic methods and sources, including authority, common sense, opinions, tradition, and scripture.Some early historical scientific texts have been preserved by religious groups, notably Islam collected scientific texts originating in various countries and Christianity brought them to Europe during the renaissance.
Historical Judeo-Christian-Islamic view
In the Medieval era, some leading thinkers in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, undertook a project of synthesis between religion, philosophy, and natural sciences. For example, the Islamic philosopher Averroes, the Jewish philosopher Maimonides, and the Christian philosopher Augustine of Hippo, held that if religious teachings were found to contradict certain direct observations about the natural world, then it would be obligatory to re-evaluate either the interpretation of the scientific facts or the understanding of the scriptures. The best knowledge of the cosmos was seen as an important part of arriving at a better understanding of the Bible, but not yet equal with the authority of the Bible.
This approach has continued down to the present day; Henry Drummond, for example, was a 19th century Scot who wrote many articles, some of which drew on scientific knowledge to tease out and illustrate Christian ideas.
From the 11th century, however, scientific methods were being applied by both Muslim scientists and Christian scientists to domains such as optics and planetary orbits, with results which threatened the Church's sacred dogma. Christianity asserted religious certainty at the expense of scientific knowledge, by giving more explicit sanction to officially correct views of nature and scripture. Similar developments occurred in other religions. This approach, while it tended to temporarily stabilize doctrine, was also inclined toward making philosophical and scientific orthodoxy less open to correction, as accepted philosophy became the religiously sanctioned science. Observation and theory became subordinate to dogma. In Europe, scientists and scholars of the Enlightenment responded to such restrictions with increasing skepticism.
Fundamentalism
The phenomenon of religious fundamentalism, especially Protestant, Christian fundamentalism which has arisen predominantly in the United States, has been characterized by some historians as originating in the reaction of the conservative Enlightenment against the liberal Enlightenment. In these terms, the scientific community is entirely committed to the skeptical Enlightenment, and has incorporated, into its understanding of the scientific method, an antipathy toward all interference of religion at any point of the scientific enterprise, and especially in the development of theory. While many popularizers of science rely heavily on religious allusions and metaphors in their books and articles, there is absolutely no orthodoxy in such matters, other than the literary value of eclecticism, and the dictates of the marketplace. Typically, fundamentalists are considerably less open to compromise and harmonization schemes than their forebears. They are far more inclined to make strict identification between religiously sanctioned science, and religious orthodoxy; and yet, they share with their early Enlightenment forebears the same optimism that religion is ultimately in harmony with "true" science. This is reflected also in their historical-grammatical approach to scripture and tradition, which they increasingly view as a source of scientific and religious certainty. Most significantly, they are openly hostile to the scientific community as a whole, and to what they call "scientific materialism."
The fundamentalist approach to modernity has also been adopted by the Islamic movements among Sunni and Shi'a Muslims across the world. For example, an Enlightenment view of the cosmos is accepted as fact, and read back into ancient texts and traditions, as though they were originally intended to be read this way. Fundamentalists often make claims that issues of modern interest, such as psychology, nutrition, genetics, physics and space travel, are spoken to directly by their ancient traditions, "foretold," in a sense, by their religion's sacred texts. For example, some Muslim fundamentalists and Muslims claim that quantum mechanics and relativity were predicted in the Qur'an, while Jews claim that the Torah can be understood according to modern sciences.
Non-fundamentalist religious views
In between these positions lies that of non-fundamentalist religious believers. A great many Christians and Jews still accept some or many traditional religious beliefs taught in their respective faith communities, but they no longer accept their tradition's teachings as unquestionable and infallible (indeed this is a basic tenet of mainstream Protestant Christian thought and of other faith perspectives open to dialogue with science). Liberal religious believers do believe in god(s), and believe that in some way their god(s) revealed their will to humanity. They differ from religious fundamentalists in that they accept that even if their religious texts were divinely inspired, they are also human documents which reflect the cultural and historic limitations and biases of their authors. Such believers are often comfortable with the findings of archaeological and linguistic research and historical-critical study. They will often make use of literary and historical analysis of religious texts to understand how they developed, and to see how they might be applied in our own day. This approach developed among Protestant scholars in the 18th and 19th centuries, and is now to found among other Christians, Liberal Jewish communities and others.
Some religious approaches acknowledge the historical relationship between modern science and ancient doctrines. For example, John Paul II, leader of the Roman Catholic Church, in 1981 spoke of the relationship this way: "The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer". This statement would reflect the views of many non-Catholic Christians as well. An example of this kind of thinking is Theistic evolution.
This understanding of the role of scripture in relation to science is captured by the phrase: "The intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." Thomas Jay Oord said: "The Bible tells us how to find abundant life, not the details of how life became abundant."
Bahá'í view
The scientific community's perspective
The attitudes of scientists towards religion
Scientists are generally wary of religion because of its historical tendency towards theocracy in those countries that do not have a strong separation of church and state in their constitutions. Examples of excesses due to religion are numerous: wars throughout history where religion is a significant matter of difference between the warring factions, the Galileo affair, the Scopes Trial and the many other guises of creationism. The tension often degenerates into issues between the short-term spiritual, psychological and social stability offered by faith-based answers versus the nature of objective reality that scientists often refer to as "the truth".
Sigmund Freud asserted in his lectures that his work, in effect challenged the notion of the great chain of being by demonstrating that no human mind was fully rational but instead had a significant amount of their cognition arise from their unconscious mind. He often likened the significance of his theory to those of heliocentrism and evolution in challenging man to view himself as strictly part of the physical universe. Freud viewed such discoveries as an appropriate insult to the ego of mankind.[19] From a biochemical point of view, one could include the progress from the synthesis of urea and the discovery of the structure of DNA as further insulting the ego by demonstrating that the stuff of life was the same atoms as those of the inanimate universe, thus discrediting the notion of vitalism and supporting the philosophy of mechanism. One of Freud's early mentors, Theodor Meynert, held the view of the human mind and even ideas were merely the result of strictly physical processes rather than revelations.
According to a 1996 survey, belief in a god that is "in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" and belief in "personal immortality" are most popular among mathematicians and least popular among biologists. In total, about 60% of scientists in the United States expressed disbelief or doubt in such a god.[20] This compared with 58% in 1914 and 67% in 1933. Among leading scientists defined as members of the National Academy of Sciences, 72.2% expressed disbelief and 93% - disbelief or doubt in the existence of a personal god in 1998.[21]
A survey conducted between 2005 and 2007 by Elaine Ecklund of University at Buffalo, The State University of New York and funded by the Templeton Foundation found that over 60% of natural and social science professors are atheists or agnostics. When asked whether they believed in God, nearly 34% answered "I do not believe in God" and about 30% answering "I do not know if there is a God and there is no way to find out,"[22] According to the same survey, "[m]any scientists see themselves as having a spirituality not attached to a particular religious tradition."[23] In further analysis, published in 2007, Ecklund and Christopher Scheitle conclude that "the assumption that becoming a scientist necessarily leads to loss of religion is untenable" and that "[i]t appears that those from non-religious backgrounds disproportionately self-select into scientific professions. This may reflect the fact that there is tension between the religious tenets of some groups and the theories and methods of particular sciences and it contributes to the large number of non-religious scientists."[24]
Prominent scientist Albert Einstein supported the compatibility of religion and science. In an article originally appearing in the New York Times Magazine in 1930, he wrote:
Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.
Scientific study of religion
Scientific studies have been done on religiosity as a social or psychological phenomenon. These include studies on the correlation between religiosity and intelligence (often IQ, but also other factors). A recent study on serotonin receptors and religiosity[26] suggests a correlation between low density of serotonin receptors and intense religious experiences. Also of popular interest are the studies regarding prayer and medicine, in particular whether there is any causal or correlative link between spiritual supplication and improvement of health. Surveys by Gallup, the National Opinion Research Centre and the Pew Organisation conclude that spiritually committed people are twice as likely to report being "very happy" than the least religiously committed people. An analysis of over 200 social studies that "high religiousness predicts a rather lower risk of depression and drug abuse and fewer suicide attempts, and more reports of satisfaction with life and a sense of well-being" and a review of 498 studies published in peer-reviewed journals concluded that a large majority of these studies showed a positive correlation between religious commitment and higher levels of perceived well-being and self-esteem, and lower levels of hypertension, depression and clinical delinquency, Surveys suggest a strong link between faith and altruism. Studies by Keith Ward show that overall religion is a positive contributor to mental health. Michael Argyle and others claim that there is little or no evidence that religion ever causes mental disorders.[33]
Some historians, philosophers and scientists hope that the theory of memetics, reminiscent of the theory of genetics, will allow the modeling of the evolution of human culture, including philosophy and religion. Daniel Dennett's book Breaking the Spell (2006) attempts to begin such an analysis of modern religions. The idea that evolutionary processes are involved in the development of human culture and religion is not particularly controversial among natural scientists, however other approaches based on social sciences such as anthropology, psychology, sociology and economics are more prevalent in academic use.
from; wikipedia.org
Postingan
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar