Limits of `Science and Religion'

(1)

STUDIES IN

SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY

(SSTh)

Yearbook of the

European Society for the Study of Science and Theology

in connection with

Ugo Amaldi, Friedrich Cramer, Willem B. Drees, Ulf Gorman, Michael Heller, Jürgen Hübner, Michael W.S. Parsons, Arthur Peacocke, Xavier Sallandn and Karl Schmitz-Moormann

Managing editor: Christoph Wassermann

Volume 2 (1994)

(2)

Volume 2 (1994)

Origins, Time and Complexity,

Partll

Edited by

George V. Coyne, SJ, Karl Schmitz-Moormann, and Christoph Wassermann

This volume has been sponsored by the Vatican Observatory - Vatican City State

•

(3)

ISBN 2-8309-0743-4

Si TO» souh aitez être tenu au courant de nos publications, il suffit de nous le signaler à notre adresse

e 1994, by Labor et Fides l, roe Beanegnd, CH - 1204 Genève Tom droite de traduction, de reproduction ou

(4)

.

vi

C. Karakash

From a Mythical to a Hermeneuücal Consciousness of Origins: A 3-Step Complexification Process 47 L Morren

A Scientific Bipolar Anthropology Completed by a Tripolar

Theological Anthropology 53 R. Polishchuk

Man as a Singularity of the Universe 58 K.J. Sharps

Theodicy and Sociobiology 61

SECTION 3

Time, Complexity and Organization

/. BolyK

The Role of the 'Elements of the World' as a Paradigm in Pytha-gorean Thinking and in the Epistle to the Colossians 69 F. Cramer

Time of Planets and Time of Life. The Concept of a

'Tree of Times' 74 D. Dieks

Physics and the Flow of Time 82 P.P. Kirschenmann

On Time and the Source of Complexity: Criticism of Certain

Views Meant to Humanize Science 89 R. Martinez

Determination and Becoming in the Special Theory of Relativity . 96 G. Thomas

Time and the Fiction of Simultaneity among Social Systems . . . . 105 L Végh

(6)

vii

SECTION 4

Origins of Biological Complexity and Its Evolution

:-'

L Galleni

Theilhard de Chardin's Search for Laws in Evolutive Orientation: A Philosophical and/or Scientific Challenge 121 U. Gorman

Can Biology Explain the Complexity of Morals? A Discussion of the Theory of Richard D. Alexander 127

SA. Grib

The Complex Structure of Outer Space and Its Relation to Life on Earth 138 K.V. Laurikainen

Evolution and Teleology 143 G. Malecot

Le Cosmos et la vie 155 C. Thomas

Complexity of Cognition: Neurobiological Considerations on

Higher Brain Function 161

SECTION 5 Time and History

P.B.T. Bilaniuk

'Chronos' and 'Kairos'. Secular and Sacred Time in Relation

to the History of Salvation and Eternity 169 A. Kracher

The Concept of 'Creation' as Epistemological Critique 174 J.W.A. Laurent and J.CA. van der Lubbe

Greek and Hebrew Elements in Christian Thinking about the

Concept of Time 182 M. Pienkowsti

(7)

R. Stahl

God as Lord of Time and as Lord within Time. The Change

of Hope in the Apocalyptic Writings of 'Daniel' 196 LJ. van den Brom

Does God Act in History? 202

SECTION 6 Hie Notion of Complexity

A. Dou

Mathematics and Complexity 213 M. Gtodt

Unfolding the Ordered Complexity of Reality. Is Science

Relevant to Theology? . . . -. 219 r. Magnm and B. Nicolescu

The Analysis of Complexity in Science and in Theology:

Towards a Common Method? 224 A.F. Sanders

Hierarchical Levels of Cognitive Structuring and the Possibility of Design 231 K. Schmitz-Moormann

The Concept of Complexity Seen in the Light of the Evolution of Complexes 236

SECTION 7

Science and Theology in General

C.B. Béné and C. Piron

Contenu métaphysique des principes et des modèles en physique fondamentale: ses dangers 245 M. Bloemendal

The Jewish Attitude Towards Nature 250 W.B. Drees

(8)

J.W. Haas, Jr.

The Changing Face of American Evangelical Attitudes toward Evolution ... 262 P.J. Huiser

Philosophy of Science and the Objective Reality of God ... 269 K.E. Kristiansen

God as Principle and Person ... 274 J. Parain-Vial

Vérités temporelles et vérité éternelle ... 279 K.H. Reich

The Relation between Science and Theology: A Response to

Critics of Complementarity ... 284 X. Sallantin

Science and Theology about Random and Freedom ... 292 y. Schapman

Which Agenda? ... 297 Vitoria

A New Era for a Dynamic Link between Science and Theology . . 302

(9)

LIMITS OF 'SCIENCE AND RELIGION'

W.B. DREES

(Bezinningscentrum, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands)

Difficulties of, and disagreements in science-and-religion are not merely consequences of the interdisciplinary character of the dialogue. The more heated disagreements and the graver misunderstandings and instances of mutual incomprehensibility may often be traced to different underlying views of the nature of religion, and thus of the aims of relating science and religion. The issue is not merely that the agenda is difficult, but also to agree on the agenda itself. Whereas many authors argue for cognitive relations between science and religion, others opt for less-cog-nitive views. This paper focuses on the way views regarding the nature of religion shape the dialogue with the sciences.

The paper in its present form is not a developed argument or a report on results, and certainly not one about specific scientific and religious insights. Rather, the paper seeks to defend that there may be serious questions with respect to many contemporary attempts to relate science and theology in a cognitive context.

1. HARBOUR'S SCHEME

Within the Western traditions, various views of the relation between science and religion co-exist. The field is regularly classified more or less with the four categories used by Barbour1: (1) Conflict, (2)

Separa-tion, (3) Dialogue about limit and boundary questions or about methodo-logical issues, and (4) Integration (or interaction), either science supporting religious views (natural theology2), or theology in the context

(10)

LIMITS OF 'SCIENCE AND RELIGION' 257

One view is 'conflict'. In dus context one might think of the battle over evolution fought by American fundamentalist 'creationism', but also of strongly reductionist^: tendencies in the natural sciences, which claim to do away with religion. More nuanced about the sciences and about the nature of religious traditions have been those who pleaded for a

sepa-ration of the issues covered by the sciences and those covered by the

humanities, especially by morality, aesthetics and religion. One well known example is the 'is-ought' distinction, effective, for example, against a naive use of sociobiology: the sciences deal with facts from which no values follow. Other grounds for separation have come from philosophy, for instance Wittgensteinian notions of language games or forms of life, and from theology, for instance as a consequence of a Christo-centric turn. This mutual irrelevance still seems to dominate most contemporary theology. Similar versions of assumed mutual irrelevance, combined all too often with mutual ignorance, exist for the whole realm of the humanities and the sciences, The Two Cultures, to use the title of a lecture of C.P. Snow in 1959. In my view, the gap between these two cultures is not merely a sociological phenomenon; it also reflects a philo-sophical conflict. The world view promoted by the sciences tends to re-duce the reality of daily life to appearance, if not illusion. Hence, even if some form of separation is accepted and science and religion are con-sidered to be different in method and in results, their relation, or at least the relative location of their domains, has to be considered, both with respect to the substance they contribute to views of the world and our place in it and with respect to method.

Some have pleaded for a dialogue or interaction with the sciences. A modest version focuses on boundary or limit questions, such as gen-eral presuppositions of the scientific enterprise. Is the rise of modem science, characterized by the mix of mathematical and empirical elements, related to the combination of Greek ideas (rationality) and Hebrew em-phasis on the dependence of the world upon God (contingency)? Both contingency and intelligibility are central concepts in various writings on science and religion. One could also focus on those limit situations where science touches on religious issues, say ethical issues due to science and presuppositions in scientific inquiry or in theology. Dialogue could deal with methodological similarities and dissimilarities, taking account of recent philosophy of science and philosophy of language, paying attention to issues of justification and to the role of models and metaphors.

(11)

princi-258 W.B. DREES

pies', the life-allowing values of the fundamental constants of physics have been invoked to argue for design (or other metaphysical options). Other authors start from a theological perspective, and articulate that in the context of contemporary scientific theories. The work of Arthur Pea-cocke, e.g. his Creation and the World of Science*, may be understood thus; he expresses his Anglican, sacramental view in an evolutionary, hierarchical understanding of nature. One step further is the integration in a systematic, metaphysical scheme, for example that of Whiteheadian process philosophy.

2. THE IMPORTANCE OF 'SEPARATION' AND 'CONFLICT'

Harbour, and with him many active authors in the science-and-relig-ion field, especially in the Anglo-Saxon world, see science and religscience-and-relig-ion as being involved in 'A common quest for understanding'4. But is the

primary issue really understanding? What does emphasis on under-standing assume about the nature of science and of religion? Continental theologians tend to emphasize more that there are limits of 'cognitive' approaches in science and, even more, in religion. What valid elements are mere in various defences of a séparation of science and religion? In this context, three aspects of religion may be referred to, as they seem to suggest limitations in relating science and religion.

Firstly, religious convictions have to do with ethical and aesthetic judgements. Hence, the ethical dimension of religion may be seen as something additional to the more cosmological elements of religion as they are considered in the dialogue with the natural sciences. It is in this context that the agenda for a dialogue between science and religion may be to counter reductionistic claims of science and mus to justify the co-existence of science and religion.

Secondly, the ethical may also be seen as something that calls into question cosmological contributions to a religious outlook.

"Every faith contradicts reality in some way. That is inevitable, if faith is to be an unconditional 'Yes!' to life. Think of all the horrors that could contradict this 'Yes!'! Think of all the oppressive experiences against which it has to be affirmed: all the probabilities and certainties, including the certainty of one's own death! Scientific thought is corrected by reference to facts; faith must contradict the oppressive force of facts"5.

(12)

LIMITS OF 'SCIENCE AND RELIGION' 259 tradition, the experience of God's presence and of some form of mystical unity or encounter with die divine. Trie prophetical tradition, on the other hand, is more shaped by a sense of divine absence, by the experience of a contrast between what is actually happening (the behaviour of the peo-ple, or of the king) and what should be the case (God's intentions). Upon this view, the 'ought' is not merely not derivable from the 'is', but ex-presses a vision of a better life, or this life better, at odds with what is. Thirdly, religion has been understood to be dealing with something beyond (or below, consider sin and evil) the rational, perhaps even with the irrational. The subtitle of Rudolf Otto's famous book The Holy is

Über das Irrationale in der Idee des Göttlichen und sein Verhältnis van Rationalen6.

3. THE PROPHETIC IN SCIENCE-AND-RELIGION

My interest in this paper is especially to discuss how one could ac-commodate the second aspect in the context of a dialogue between sci-ence and religion. Is a cognitive approach in scisci-ence-and-religion able to do justice to the prophetic tradition? It is not merely a tension between science and religion, but one within (he Christian tradition itself. On the one hand, one may well defend that the Christian faith lives by the in-tegration of 'is' and 'ought', of creation and salvation. On the other hand, however, the tradition embodies the resistance against an identification of what is with what should be. This is articulated in various ways, such as the differentiation between God and the world, between paradise and life after the Fall, between the present and the future aeon, or between heaven and earth. Could that not be one of the major justifications of the need for religious traditions in an age of science? Such an understanding of religion may take the guise of a separation of science and religion, but it may also be shaped along the more engaged forms of 'postmodern suspicion' against encompassing systems7.

(13)

theolo-260 W.B. DREES

gies, but also, less politically, the work of those emphasizing religious language following Wittgenstein's 'meaning is use'), but has not gained much hearing within the science-and-religion dialogue, except for a few, like Mary Hesse8. The emphasis on the various human practices,

includ-ing religious practices, has also arisen in the work of some engaged in the development of morality and religion in the history of the human species.

4. CONCLUDING QUESTIONS

What consequences does an understanding of religion which empha-sizes non-cognitive aspects of religion have for cognitive approaches to-wards the relation between science and religion, for example for reflections on intelligibility or order? Does it imply limits to science-and-religion and flaws within harmonizing approaches? Are we after a full harmony between scientific understanding and religious discernment, or is there a more persistent ambivalence about the world - an ambivalence which we would rather want to fight than to understand? If so, is there not an ethical drive behind the separation of science and religion, besides the intellectual interest of avoiding cognitive dissonances?

Tension between the 'is' and the 'ought', between the life we actually live and the ideals that are supposed to inspire us, and which were once formulated in strongly dualistic terms (Heaven - Earth, coming Kingdom - the present age, world - God) seems essential to the Christian heritage. Can one maintain such a tension while accepting the expansive, monistic tendencies of science9? In this context, biological approaches which tend

to suggest that morality and religion have arisen for functional reasons may be especially challenging as they reduce ideals to ideas which serve to guide the behaviour of others to our advantage.

(14)

LIMITS OF 'SCIENCE AND RELIGION' 261

NOTES

1. I.G. Barbour, "Ways of relating science and theology", in: R.J. Russell, W.R. Sloeger and G.V. Coyne (eds.), Physics, Philosophy and Theology, (Vatican Ob-servatory) Vatican City State 1988; and I.G. Barbour, Religion in an Age of

Science, (Harper & Row) San Francisco 1990, 3-30. Viggo Morlensen classified

the fields somewhat differently in terms of restriction (more or less like inde-pendence, granting co-existence by restricting the scope of science and the scope of religion) and expansion (more or less encompassing 'conflict' and 'integra-tion'). See V. Mortensen, "The status of the science-religion dialogue", in: S. Andersen and A.R. Peacocke (eds.). Evolution and Creation, (Aarhus University Press) Aarhus 1987, and Teologi og naturvidenskab: Hinsides restrilaion og

ek-spansion, (Munksgaard) K0bcnhavn 1988.

2. 'Natural theology' is taken here in its Anglo-Saxon meaning, reflected in sym-pathy for arguments from design, rather than in its German meaning, where it has become associated with a conservative or racist position in socio-political matters.

3. (Clarendon Press) Oxford 1979.

4. This is the subtitle of: RJ. Russell, W.R. Stoeger, G.V. Coyne (eds.). Physics,

Philosophy and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding, (Vatican

Obser-vatory) Vatican City State 1988; (distribution outside Italy by University of Notre Dame Press). The italics in the text which emphasize 'understanding' are mine. 5. Gerd Theissen, Biblical Faith: an Evolutionary Approach, (SCM) London 1985,

4.

6. HJ. Adriaanse, "Theologie en het irrationele", in: HJ. Adriaanse and H.A. Krop (eds.). Theologie en rationaliteit: godsdienstwijsgerige bijdragen, (Kok) Kampen 1988.

7. This also underlies the rejection of a theoretical theodicy in K. Surin, Theology

and the Problem of Evil (Basil Blackwell) Oxford 1986, who proposes that one

should rather focus on a practical theodicy, asking what God and we as God's creatures do to overcome evil and suffering (e.g., p. 67, referring to D. Solle, J. Moltmann and P.T. Forsyth as examples, p. 112), rather than asking whether the existence of God (conceived of as omnipotent and morally perfect) and the amount of evil and suffering are compatible.

8. See, for instance, M.A. Arbib and M.B. Hesse, The Construction of Reality (Cam-bridge University Press) Cam(Cam-bridge 1986.

Limits of `Science and Religion'

STUDIES IN

SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY

(SSTh)

Yearbook of the

European Society for the Study of Science and Theology

Volume 2 (1994)

Origins, Time and Complexity,

Partll

Contents

.

LIMITS OF 'SCIENCE AND RELIGION'

NOTES