It is amazing how many people on both sides of the political/worldview divide have the impression that if you believe in God, you cannot truly be a man of science. My students constantly bring this point up and are surprised when I tell them that the two are not mutually exclusive. While it is true that no likely definitive proof for God exists within the frame of logic that underpins science, this in no way invalidates God.
Let us not forget that science operates within limits - limits set by empirical evidence and the self-contained rationalism that allow us (as scientists) to infer from the evidence available. Like any system of knowledge, it also accepts certain constructs a priori, and as Kurt Gödel showed with his Incompleteness Theorem that even Mathematics (as a system of logic) could not be verifiable within itself. Nevertheless, science is the best system for elucidating the mysteries of the universe as it constantly requires more stringent levels of checking and retesting. Couple this with the strength of Karl Popper's falsification argument, and it is easy to see why science is successful as an epistemological tool.
I am most certainly not a biblical literalist in that I see what purports to be the bible as a mixture, albeit a valuable one, of oral history and ancient mythology. I have also dismissed the scientific validity of intelligent design. Darwin's descent with modification makes sense to me, but at the same time, I am skeptical of the random mutation arguments so favored by the various Neo-Darwinian schools. I am more inclined to see evolutionary changes being driven by systems of self-organization. A methodology that is likely to be explained by science, although not within the dominant paradigm from which it currently operates at present.
Physicist-theologian Ian Barbour writes extensively about the interaction of science and religion and posits a four-facet model dealing with the relationship between these two avenues of human thought to be very useful.
In summary, Barbour (a Templeton Award winner) sees the two mechanisms of science and religion through the eyes of four different models:
Conflict: Where they butt heads viz. Scientific Materialism versus Biblical Literalism
Independence: Where they ignore one another - Separate Domains and Different Languages and Functions
Dialogue: Interaction in the area of Limit-Questions. Parallels and Common Methodologies
Integration: Incorporating the two dynamics together within the framework of Natural Theology, Theology of Nature, or Barbour's favorite Systematic Synthesis.
Barbour analyzes these models in the areas of Astronomy and Creation, Quantum Physics, Evolution, and Continuing Creation, Neuroscience and Human Nature, and finally, God and Nature.
From this work, I take much solace in an integrationist model that seeks to build connections instead of divide. For me, this makes the most sense, and it is from this platform that I see the world - open to reason but at the same time mindful of a greater presence that exists.
No comments:
Post a Comment