ConflictsBetweenScienceandReligion

Generally speaking, science is the study of the empirically observable world, while religion pertains largely to what is immaterial and cannot be detected through the senses (if that description is even true of anything). There was a time when philosophy, theology, and naturalsciencecoexistedpeacefullyasequalpartnersinthequestforunderstanding.Intheeyesofmany,thatharmonyhasturnedinto thestrongestrivalryofourtime.Accordingtooneverypopularconceptionoftherelationshipbetweenscienceandreligion,thetwoare enemieslockedinmortalcombat.Inthisview,religiousclaimsrailagainstscience,whichinturnunderminesthecredibilityofreligion.But noteveryoneseestherelationshipinthatlight.Forexample,thoseattheforefrontoftheIntelligentDesignmovementthinkthattheistic claims have only been bolstered by recent developments in science. To them, science and religion can and do support each other. Still othersmaintainthatreligionandsciencedonotaffecteachotheratalltheyareseparate,isolatedareasofdiscoursewithlittleornothing tosaytoeachother.Therearealsothosewhodoubtthatreligionisafieldofinquiryatall.Forthem,religiondoesntstudythings.Itsnot an area of knowledge on par with established scientific fields. In what follows, we will look more closely at these accounts of the relationshipbetweenscienceandreligion:thatthetwoareenemieslockedinmortalcombat,orthattheysupporteachother,orthatthey donotaffecteachother.

TableofContents
1. DefiningScience 2. DefiningReligion 3. TheHostilityTheory a. Copernicus,Galileo,andHeliocentrism b. NewtonandMechanism c. DarwinandEvolution d. ACommonCore e. ACaseStudy 4. TheHarmonyTheory 5. TheIndifferenceTheory a. FactversusFaith? 6. Conclusion 7. ReferencesandFurtherReading

1.DefiningScience
Inordertocarryonadiscussionabouttherelationshipbetweenscienceandreligion,thereneedstobeagrasponhowthefieldsdiffer.Itis importanttonotethatthebifurcationofareasofknowledgeintothemyriadspecialtiesonefindstodayisarelativelynewphenomenon. Until the modern period, science was not a separate discipline from philosophy scientists were known as natural philosophers, or experimental philosophers. In those expressions, one sees what it was that those men and women thought was distinctive about their investigations:theirmethods,andconclusions,were,attheriskofoversimplification,directedatempiricalclaimsaboutthenaturalworld. Theirprimarymissionwastogatherdataaboutobservablephenomenainnature,tocategorizethatdata,andtogeneralizefromspecific observationstomoregeneralones.Inthisvein,somescientistshavedescribedtheirworkasbeingaquesttodiscoverthelawsofnature. Divergent descriptions of natural laws have been put forward, but there is a broad consensus that laws of nature describe the regular behaviorofphysicalobjectsandsystems.NewtonsfamousLawsofMotionareparadigmcasesofsuchlaws:theyposit,forexample,that anobjectatrestwillremainatrestunlesscompelledbyanexternalforce.Othercandidatesfornaturallaws,however,areprobabilistic, ratherthandeterministic,innature.Radioactivedecayratesareexamplesofprobabilisticlaws:theystatethathalfofagivenquantityof someradioactiveelementwilldecaywithinthetimeknownasitshalflife.Thechanceofanyspecificatomofthatsampledecayingwithin thehalflifeisthusfiftypercent. Science aims at understanding the behavior of the natural world. Any propositions that are about supernatural objects, or abstract universals,ornormativeethics,shouldnotbeconsideredscientificsincetheydonotpertaintothestudyofnatural,empiricalobjects. Evenso,noteveryscientificclaimisdirectlyaboutempiricalobjects.Butthoseclaimsthatarenot(forexample,theclaimthatscience ought to proceed by inductivelybased generalizations, which is itself a claim about the enterprise of science, not about any empirical objects)areusually,attheveryleast,connectedtoorsupportiveoftheinvestigationofnatureandnaturalobjects.That,however,isonlya necessary condition, not a sufficient one. What might be needed to complete the definition of science is still a matter of considerable debate.

2.DefiningReligion
Religion can be understood in terms of either its practice or its propositional content. With respect to its practice, religious systems generallyprescribecertainbehaviors,rituals,rites,andcelebrationsthattheiradherentsare,atleastinsomerespect,expectedtoobserve. Infollowingthesepractices,membersofareligionareunitedinarhythmsharedbyallandonlythosewhoarefellowpractitioners.Inthat sensethereisanoutwardlyrecognizableaspecttoreligion,andinthatsensereligionisclearlydistinctfromscience,whichprescribesno such ritual behavior. But it is not in the common celebrations and rites that science and religion are seen to conflict: it is in their propositionalcontentinstead. Religious propositional content is often easy to recognize, and easy to distinguish from scientific propositions. Characterizing the differencesthatallowustomakethosedistinctionsbetweenthem,ontheotherhand,isquitethorny.Thefirstproblemisthatthereisvery little resemblance between the propositional content of different religions, making it difficult to say what the necessary and sufficient conditionsareforapropositiontocountasareligiousproposition.Forinstance,notallreligionsagreeabouttheexistenceofGod,for thereareatheisticversionsofBuddhism.AmongthosereligionsthatbelieveintheexistenceofGod,therearewidelyrangingdescriptions ofwhatGodislike:therearemonotheistic,pantheistic,andpolytheisticvarietiesofHinduism,forexample.Evenmonotheistsdonotall agreeaboutwhatGodislike:theChristianconceptoftheTrinityisferventlyrejectedbyadherentsofIslamandJudaism,despitetheir commonhistoricalorigins. Perhapsonecouldtrytodefinereligiouspropositionsasmetaphysical,andscientificpropositionsasempirical.Toacertainextentthat

wouldhold.Religiousclaimsareoftenmetaphysical,whereasscientificclaimsareusuallyempirical.Thatdistinctionwillprovetoogeneral, however,sincemanymetaphysicalclaimswouldnotbeproperlyconsideredreligious(forexample,thatpropositionsareabstractobjects, orthattimeandspaceareminddependent).Inaddition,manymetaphysicalclaimsarethoughtofasscientific(forexample,thatthereis noabsolutereferenceframe),andmanyreligiousclaimsareempirical(forexample,thatJesusbodywastakenfromtheearth). Similar problems arise with attempting to define religious claims solely in terms of their ethical content. That is, one cannot define religious claims as ethical claims since there are claims that one would classify as religious that are not ethical (for example, that God exists),andethicalclaimsthatarenotreligious(forexample,thatcountriesareobligedtohonortheirtreaties).Itwillalsonotworkto definereligiouspropositionsasthosestatementsconcernedwithdiagnosingauniversalproblem,orprescribingacuretothatproblem. FreudianismandMarxismdothattoo,buttheyarenotgenerallythoughttobereligions.Norcanonesimplysaythatreligiousclaimsare allthoseclaimsthatarenotscientific.Surelytherearenonscientificclaimsthatarealsononreligious. Thedifficultyoffindingclearanddistinctmarkersthatidentifyagivenpremiseaseitherreligiousorscientificexacerbatesthetension betweenthetwocamps.Someclaimsareconsideredbybothreligiouspractitionersandscientiststofallwithintheirownproperrealmof authority,buttheydisagreeaboutthetruthofthoseclaimsandaboutwhethertheothercamphasanyauthoritytopronounceontheclaim inquestion.Inwhatfollows,wewillconcentrateontherelationshipbetweenthepropositionsthatscienceandreligionaffirm.Thatis,our focuswillbeonhowthepropositionsendorsedbysciencerelatetothepropositionsembracedbyreligiouspractitioners.

3.TheHostilityTheory
The relationship between science and religion is frequently modeled as being hostile, with each side making claims that the other side denies.Accordingtothe hostilitymodel, scientific claims are false if religious claims are true, and religious claims are false if scientific claimsaretrue.Thedepictionusuallygoesbeyondthat,however,totheclaimthattheopponentisnotsimplyincorrect,butoperating undergreatanddangerousdelusions.ConsiderthisspeechgivenbythecharacterMatthewHarrisonBradyfromInherittheWind, the movieaboutthefamedScopestrial: IhavebeentotheircitiesandIhaveseenthealtarsuponwhichtheysacrificethefuturesoftheirchildrentothegodsofscience. Andwhataretheirrewards?Confusionandselfdestruction.Newwaystokilleachotherinwars.Itellyou,gentlemen,thewayof scienceisthewayofdarkness.

Ontheotherendofthespectrum,IsaacAsimovmadethisstatementintheCanadianAtheistsNewsletterin1994: Imaginethepeoplewhobelieve[thatGodexists]andwhoarenotashamedtoignore,totally,allthepatientfindingsofthinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative,themostunthinkingamongus,whowouldmakethemselvestheguidesandleadersofusallwhowouldforce theirfeebleandchildishbeliefsonuswhowouldinvadeourschoolsandlibrariesandhomes.Ipersonallyresentitbitterly.

Bothsides,accordingtothehostilitymodel,considertheothersidetobewrongevendangerouslyso.Inwhatfollowswewillconsider threeofthemosthistoricallyimportantareasofpurportedconflictbetweenscienceandreligion.

a.Copernicus,Galileo,andHeliocentrism
TheconflictbetweentheCatholicChurchandempiricalscientistsoverheliocentrismisoftentreatedasifthescientists,interestedonlyin thetruthofthematter,wereruthlesslypersecutedbytheChurch,whichwasblindedtothefactsbyitsnarrowmindeddogmatism.But thatisalmostcertainlyanexaggeration,ifnotanoutrightmischaracterization,oftheearlydebate. Atissuewasthequestionofwhichbodyorbitedwhich:didtheearthorbitthesun,ordidthesunorbittheearth?Theolderview,inherited fromPtolemy,wasthatthesunandallotherheavenlybodieswereinorbitaroundtheearth,thefixedcenteroftheuniverse.Certainlythe ChurchfoundjustificationforgeocentrisminChristianscripture:Youhaveestablishedtheearthonitsfoundationsitcannotbemoved, saysthepsalmist.ButitisnotsimplyallegiancetoaliteralinterpretationoftheBiblethatledtheChurchandGalileointoconflict. Tobesure,thePtolemaicsystem,inanattempttoaccommodatethegrowingastronomicaldatabeinggatheredbydiligentobserversofthe heavens, had become so elaborate and cumbersome by the time Nicolaus Copernicus came on the scene that a simpler system that accommodatedthedatawouldhavebeenwarmlywelcomed. In1543,CopernicuspublishedRevolutionsoftheCelestialSpheres,inwhichhelaidouthismodelofheliocentrism.Hehadbeenworking on the observations that led to the publication for thirty years, and it was only after considerable prompting that he published those findingsatall.Inhismind,theworkwasstillincompleteandinconclusive.Contrarytothewayitisoftendepicted,therewasnoclearly compelling case made in Revolutions sufficient for toppling the geocentric model favored by the Church. There was no new evidence presentedinhispublication.Instead,hewrotehisproposalbecauseheconsidereditmoreelegantandofgreaterexplanatorypowerthan thePtolemaicsystem. AfterCopernicuspassedfromthestage,Galileomadehisgreatentrance.Aidedbyanewlyinventedmeansofmagnification,thetelescope, Galileo chronicled several observable features of our solar system that were in conflict with the claims of Ptolemy. For example, he observedthatJupiterhadfourmoonsinitsorbit,thatVenusalsohasphasesliketheearthsmoon,andthatthesurfaceofthemoonwas notsmooth,ashadbeenclaimedbyAristotle,butfullofpeaksandvalleys.AsRichardJ.Blackwellpointsout, Asthegenerationspassed,somenewevidenceslowlyaccumulatedthattendedtomakethenewcosmictheorymorelikelytobe true.InGalileosday,however,conclusiveproofofCopernicanismstillhadnotbeenfound,despitehisownlifelongeffortsto establishsuchaproof.TounderstandtheGalileoaffairproperly,itisessentialtokeepinmindthatnoone,includingGalileo himself,wasyetabletosettlethescientificdebateconclusively(Blackwell109).

When Copernicus developed his heliocentric model, it fared no better at fitting the data than did the older, but admittedly more complicated,geocentrismbasedonPtolemy.Theearlydebatewasnotbetweenasystemthatfitthedata(Copernicuss)andonethatdid not (Ptolemys). Instead, the two systems were in a dead heat in terms of according with observations. The apparent advantage to heliocentrismwasnotthatitfittheempiricalfindingsbetterthanthegeocentricmodelinstead,theadvantagewasthatitdidsowhile employingfewerbrutefacts. OneexampleofthatisthedifferentexplanationsofferedoftheretrogrademotionofMars.Normally,thepathofaplanetistotravelfrom westtoeastalongwiththerestofthestars.Sometimes,however,theplanetseemstobacktrack,temporarilydriftingfromeasttowest. Explainingthisretrogrademotionwasaperennialproblemforastronomers,andthePtolemaicexplanationwasthatMarsmovedintwo

circles:therewasasmallcircularpaththatMarstraversed,centeredonapaththattracedawidercirclewiththeearthatitscenter.Ifa personweretoholda(transparent)bicycletireparalleltotheground,withacoloreddotpaintedontheouterpartofthetire,andwere thentosetthetirespinningcounterclockwisewhileholdingthecenterofthetireinafixedposition,thedotwouldappeartothatpersonto travelfromrighttoleft,thenfromlefttoright,thenrighttoleft,thenlefttoright,andsoonasitcircumscribedthehub.Supposethatthe personthenwalkedinacounterclockwisecirclearoundatreewiththetirestillspinning.Fromanobserverinthetree,thecoloreddoton thetirewouldappeartotravelgenerallyfromrighttoleft,withperiodsoftravelingfromlefttoright.Thissystemofpostulatingcircles travelingaroundcircles(knownasepicycles)ishowthePtolemaicsystemaccountedforretrogrademotion. TheCopernicanmodelissimpler.Retrogrademotionresultsfromthefactthatplanetsfurtherfromthesunmoveinslowercyclesthan planetsnearertothesun.RetrogrademotionresultsfromtheearthpassingMarsontheinsideasthetwoplanetsjourneyaroundthesun. EventhoughtheCopernicanmodelrequiresfewercyclesofmotionitwasnotobviouslysuperior.Therewerestillproblemswithfittingthe modeltothedata,problemswhichresultedmostlyfromtheassumption(tobecorrectedlaterbyKepler)thatallorbitshadtobecircular. TheGalileancontroversycannotbeproperlyunderstoodaslongasitistreatedsimplyasaquestionofdatafittingonemodelbutnotthe other.Somescholarshavearguedthattherewasstrongreasontoresisttheabruptparadigmchangebeingofferedbyheliocentrismthat wentbeyondtheastronomicaldataitself. Aristoteliannaturalphilosophy,whichservedasthebroadframeworkforthegeocentricmodel endorsed by medieval philosophers and Churchmen, had been remarkably successful at providing scientific insight and explanation. Thoughgeocentrismandheliocentrismratedaboutthesamewhenitcametofittingastronomicaldata,therewereothertheoreticalpoints toconsider,someofwhichgavegeocentrismandAristoteliannaturalphilosophyanapparentadvantage.Scripturewasmostnaturallyread asgeocentric,ashasbeennoted,andAristotlesphysicalprinciplesinallareasofsciencehadbeensopowerfulandwellestablishedthat therewasastrongpresumptionintheirfavor.Asonecommentatorstates,TheAristoteliancorpusofferedaconvincingframeworkanda powerfulmethodologyforthinkingandwritingaboutcosmology,meteorology,psychology,mattertheory,motion,light,sensation,and biologicalphenomenaofallkindsAristotelianphilosophywassimplytoovaluabletorelinquish(Lindberg67).ToframetheGalilean controversysimplyintermsofreligionversusscienceisinaccurateandunhelpful. Facedwithtwoequallyablemodels,then,theChurchmentriedtosettlethedisputebysayingthatonemodel(geocentrism)morenaturally fit the claims of the Bible and was better suited to Aristotles highly successful broader scientific framework. Thus, both astronomical modelsfitthedataequallyaccurately(orequallyinaccurately)butoneseemedtofitholywritmuchmorenaturally,andrequiredaless radical retooling of the entire body of scientific knowledge. It was those differences not empirical superiority that inclined the Church towardthePtolemaicsystem.Suchwasthestageoftheearlydebate.

b.NewtonandMechanism
Intheseventeenthcentury,thebrilliantworkofSirIsaacNewtongaverisetoanotherissuethatwouldstraintherelationshipbetween scienceandreligion.Newtonwasabletomodelthebehaviorofcelestialbodies(includingtheearth,moon,andsun)throughmechanical meansbypositingthatoneforce,theforceofgravity,wasresponsibleforterrestrialphenomena,suchasthefallingofheavybodiesto earth, as well as celestial phenomena, such as the earths orbit around the sun. Through his clever combination of observation and mathematicalmodeling,healsoformulatedhisthreefamouslawsofmotion:(1)thatabodyatrestwillstayatrest,andabodyatmotion willcontinueinuniformmotion,unlessactedonbyanexternalforce(2)thataforceofstrengthFappliedtoabodyofmassmresultsinan accelerationofaand(3)thateveryactionispairedwithanequalandoppositereaction. Theresultofthiscomprehensiveandpowerfulworkwastheabilitytoaccountfornearlyallnaturalphenomenafromafewcarefullystated physical principles. Even though Newton frequently referred to the activity of God in nature (for example, that God might be directly responsibleforgravitationalattractionintheabsenceofamateriallymediatedforce,orthatthesmallestparticlesofmatterweremadeto beindestructiblebyGodsothatnaturewouldhaveaconstantcharacterthroughtime),therewasnothinginhissystemofnaturethat required God, or any intelligent agent at all. The properties of matter in motion seemed sufficient to explain the behavior of natural objects.Hiswasanapparentlycompletesystemandthoroughlynaturalisticsystem. Interestingly,thisledtotwodiametricallyopposedinferences.Ontheonehand,manypeoplesawthesuccessofNewton(andmanypeople seethecontinuedsuccessofphysicstothepresentday)asanargumentfor atheism.IfGodisnotneededtoexplainthebehaviorofthe world,andifthecosmos,likeagiantclock,operatesonmechanicalprinciplesalone,thenonehasnoreasontosupposethatGodeven exists.TherearenoexplanatorygapsleftforGodtofill.Newtonhimselfwouldhaverejectedthis.HeconsideredGodtohaveavitalrolein setting up the initial conditions for the universe. Not all of his followers agreed. Napoleon Bonaparte invited the great physicist and mathematicianPierreSimonLaplacetogivehimalessononthehistoryandoriginofthecosmos,thenebularhypothesisoftheoriginof theplanetsandstars,andothercurrentscientificspeculations.AfterexplainingallthesethingsinpurelymechanistictermstoNapoleon, LaplacewasaskedwhyhehadmadenomentionofGodinhisaccount.Sir,Laplacequipped,Ihavenoneedofthathypothesis. Others saw the success of Newtons work, and the picture he gave of the universe as an enormous machine, as a strong argument for theism.ThiswasNewtonsownconclusionaswell.ItwasjustthisimageofthecosmosasawellconstructedmachinethatpromptedWilliam Paleytogivehisfamouswatchanalogy.Paleyarguedthatonewouldnotsupposethatafinewatchfoundintheforestwastheresultof chance,butwouldinferthattheremusthavebeenawatchmaker.Inthesameway,Paleysaidtheexistenceofafinelycrafteduniverse compelsustobelievethattheuniversemusthavebeendesignedaswell.ForPaley,thecomplexityoftheworldspokeinfavorofGods existence, not against it. The world could have been chaotic, but it is not: it is lawlike, consistent in its behavior, and welladjusted to supporttheneedsoflife.

c.DarwinandEvolution
A third battle between science and religion developed over the theories of Charles Darwin. Like the debates over heliocentrism and mechanism,thedebateover evolutioncanbeunderstoodinalessrhetoricallychargedwaythanitisusuallypresented.Oneassumption thatdrovetheinitialresistancetoDarwinismisthebeliefthatnospeciescanmutateintoadifferentspecies.Thisdoctrine,knownasthe fixityofspecies,wasbasedonuniformobservations,andnoexperimentalorobservationalevidencewasknowntocontradictit.Instead,it had always been the believed that like produces like. That is, chickens, when they reproduce, make chickens, bats make bats, and cucumbersmakemorecucumbers. Scriptureseemedtosupportthiseverydayobservation.GenesisclaimsthatGoddecreedcreaturestoreproduceaftertheirkind.Italso claimsthatspecieswerecreateddirectlybyGodinthemanner(moreorless)thattheyexisttoday.So,onaliteralreadingofGenesis,a theologicalposition,supportedbyuniformobservation,providedgroundstodissentfromDarwinabouttheoriginofspecies.Itistrue thatmosttheologianswerenotfriendlytoDarwinitisuntruethattheyhadnorationalreasonfortakingthepositiontheydid. Therehavebeennoteworthyattacksonevolutionarytheoryfromwithinthescientificcommunityitselfratherthanfromoutsideinthe theologicalcommunity.Forexample,Darwinsuggestedthattheeyemaybetoocomplextoarisethroughnaturalselectionalone.Afterall, whatevolutionaryadvantagewouldtherebetoahalfeyethatcouldntworkasaneye?SeizingonDarwinsideathatitisdifficulttogivean evolutionary explanation of the eye, because it is apparently irreducibly complex, a small number of scientists, such as the biochemist MichaelBehe,areconvincedthattheworldistheproductofintelligentdesign.Thesecomplexsystems,onBehesaccount,couldnothave arisenthroughslight,successivemodifications,becausetheycompletelyceasetofunctionifanyoftheirpartsisremoved.Inresponse, evolutionistspointoutthediscoveryofanintermediatespecieswithahalfeyethatcouldbeusedforsomepurposeotherthanseeing,and successatdoingthiswouldhelptomakethespeciesbetterfitforsurvival. Since the original furor over Darwinism, many religious thinkers have reexamined their theological commitments and scriptural

hermeneutical frameworks. The result has been that they have found a way to affirm the importance and accuracy of the historical narratives,whilesituatingtheminanevolutionaryframework.Similarly,manybiologistshavehappilycarriedontheirworkwhile,atthe same time, assenting to the authority of sacred texts. To many Christian fundamentalists, on the other hand, Darwins biology is unacceptable,andtheplainteachingofGenesisisthattheworldwascreateddirectlybyGodinasixdayperiodafewthousandyearsago,a viewknownasyoungearthcreationism.ButnotallChristiansagreethatGenesisistobeunderstoodthatway.Seekingharmony,these ChristianshaveunderstoodGenesisasbeingapolemicprimarilyagainsttheSumeriancreationmythknownastheEnumaElishandthey have concluded that Genesis is not arguing for young earth creationism, or any specific timeline of creation: instead, it may have a completely different pedagogical agenda altogether, the agenda of asserting simply that God alone is the creator or that creation is intentionalandnotaccidentalorthatthereisnothinginexistencethatGoddidnotcreate. Noteveryonehasbeenpleasedbythesenewharmonizations.Courtrecordsacrossthecountryreflectthetensionthatstillinfusesthe debate: state and federal courts have been involved in multiple states where advocates of divine creationism have tried to have their positionrepresentedinofficialpublicschooltextbooksandcurricula.Religiousleadersareoftenattheforefrontofthesecontests,arguing thatevolutionarynaturalismisbadscienceifitisscienceatallandthattheactivityofanintelligentdesignerisevidentinnature,andought tobediscussedwhenorigintheoriesarepresented.Theirproposalsaremetwithstiffresistancefrommanycivilrightsorganizations,as well as a preponderance of the scientific establishment. Activists from those camps allege that creationism (or creation science, or intelligent design) can be discussed at home or Sunday school, but it is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt at establishing a theocraticeducationalsystemformulatedbyChristianfundamentalists.Itisnot,theysay,ascientifictheory.

d.ACommonCore
Alltheseconflictshaveacentralissue:theexplanationofdata.Frequently,thedebateisnotoverwhatthedataare,butwhattheymean.It isoftenthoughtthatscientificdatadonotrequireanyinterpretation,butthatpositioncannotwithstandmuchscrutiny.Theimportanceof interpretationinunderstandinghowscienceandreligioninteractwithdataisbroughtintofocusbytheworkofPierreDuhemandW.V.O. Quine,withwhathascometobecalledtheDuhemQuinethesis.Accordingtothisproposition,scientifichypothesesdonotcomefree floating.Theyarealwayssituatedagainstalargearrayofbackgroundhypotheses,whichconsistpartlyofotherobservations,partlyof otherempiricalhypotheses,andpartlyofmetaphysicalandepistemologicalphilosophicalpropositions.Nosinglehypothesis,therefore, canbeisolatedandeitherdecisivelyrefutedorconfirmedbyexperimentaldata.Supposesomescientifichypothesishentailsthatacertain resultrwillcomefromsomeexperimente.Thatis,himpliesr.Wheneisperformed,however,supposethattheoppositeoftheexpected resultobtains:eyields~rinsteadoftheanticipatedresultr,apparentlyrefutingh.But,cautionDuhemandQuine,thatmoveistoohasty: theDuhemQuineargumentisthatoneneversimplyhashandhaloneasadrivinghypothesis.Everyhypothesisiscoupledwithasetof backgroundassumptionsbsuchthattheargumentabovewasrepresentedwithoutakeyvariableinplace.Acompleteversionwouldhave (h&b)implyr,soif~ristheresult,thenthisisinsufficienttodeterminewhethertheexperimentshows~horinstead~b.Thatis,the result ~r might simply refute something within the vast set of background assumptions. This leads to an insuperable problem: the practical,andmaybetheoretical,impossibilityofelucidatingallofbmeansthattherecanbenocompleteandconclusiverefutationofany specificscientifichypothesis.Thus,almostanysetofobservationscanberetainedinthefaceofapparentlydisconfirmingexperimental data. TheDuhemQuinethesiscanbeappliedtoanothersubjectatthecoreoftheconflictsbetweenreligionandscience:theinterpretationof sacred texts. Part of what the thesis highlights is the role of interpretation in understanding the relationships between experiments, hypotheses,confirmation,andexplanation.Inthesameway,thereisalwaysasetofbackgroundassumptionsthatareadertakestothe interpretation of scripture. No single interpretive statement stands in isolation from the set of assumptions undergirding it. Certain experimentalresultsorempiricalobservationsmayseeminglyservetodisconfirmascripturalclaim(forinstance,thattheearthisfixed andcannotbemoved),butitcanneverbecertainthatthedatadisconfirmsthatclaimratherthanoneoftheclaimsinthesetofbackground assumptions.Forexample,GalileosobservationaldatamightnotdisconfirmtheBiblesclaimthattheearthisfixedanddoesnotmovebut insteaddisconfirmsomebackgroundassumptionsthatledChurchmentosupposethattheBibledidclaimthattheearthisfixedanddoes notmove.Inthisway,theBibleissavedfromdisconfirmation,fromrefutation.

e.ACaseStudy
Sinceitisthemostchargedofthethreecasesdiscussedabove,theevolutionissuewillserveasagoodapplicationoftheDuhemQuine thesis.SupposethatanevolutionistwerestronglyDarwinianthatis,theytooknotonlythegeneralcontoursofDarwinism,but Darwins ownspecificclaimsasauthoritative.OneoftheclaimsDarwinmadeabouthistheorywasthat,afterasufficientamountofgeologicaldata hadbeenrecoveredfromtheearth,thefossilrecordwouldbearouthistheorybydisplayingaseriesofinterspecificlifeforms,aseriesof speciesconnectingacurrentspecieswithitsancestorspecies,thesocalledmissinglinksbetweenthespeciesanditsancestors.Between humans and their earlier ancestors, a clear lineage would be displayed to support the adaptation/natural selection model that Darwin proposed. Famously,thefossilrecordhasbeenquitepuzzlingonthisissue.Ontheonehand,manynew(previouslyunknown)specieshavebeen discovered,andtheyhavebeenplacedinevolutionarychainsthatprecedethesetofspeciesthatcurrentlypopulatetheplanet.Onthe otherhand,thenatureofthefossilrecordhasbeenquitedifferentfromwhatDarwinpredicted.Insteadofthesmoothtransitionfrom speciestospecies,withtheintermediarystepsfilledinbytransitionallifeformsthathavesincepassedfromthescene,oneseesnearly instantaneousproliferationsofnewspeciesarising,seemingly,outofnowhere. Divine creationists and evolutionists have both seen this as consistent with their beliefs. The evolutionist, not cowed by the apparent counterevidence to Darwinism, has reformulated evolutionary theory to account for these abrupt changes. Stephen Jay Gould, for instance,hasarguedthatevolutiontookplacethroughpunctuatedequilibrium:long,stableperiodswithnonewspeciesformationare followed by rapid species multiplication that happens too fast to be captured in the fossil record. Creationists have seen the nearly instantaneousproliferationsofnewspeciesassupportiveoftheirclaimthatGodperformedseveraldiscreteactsofcreation,introducinga limitedsetofspeciesatatimewithgapsbetweenthoseactsofdirectcreation. Bothsidesarelookingatthesamedata,butdisagreeingovertheinterpretationofthatdata.Howcanthatbe?TheDuhemQuinethesis offerssomeinsightherebypointingoutthatitwillalwaysbethecasethatagivensetofdatafitintodifferentinterpretiveframeworks. Creationists see the fossil record as refuting Darwinism, and thereby evolutionary theory. Evolutionists see it as refuting Darwins backgroundassumptionthatevolutionwouldtakeplaceslowlyandgradually.Evolutionistsseethefossilrecordandtheoldageoffossils, as well as other independent lines of evidence that point to an ancient earth and an even more ancient cosmos, as a refutation of creationism. Many who believe that God is the creator and designer of the world see the same evidence as refuting a certain literal interpretationofGenesis,butnotrefutingcreationismmorebroadlyconceived(thatis,creationismthatisnotyoungearthcreationism). Thereis,andwillalwaysbe,animpassewhenevertwosidesdisagreeaboutdatathatcanfitwithcontradictorysetsofassumptions,and newdisagreementswillariseoverwhetherthisfitisareasonablefitorinsteadafitthatistooadhoctobeacceptedasreasonable. The creationevolution debate serves as an excellent example of the philosophical problems involved in explanations of data and refutationsofhypotheses,butitisbynomeansunique.Thesamekindofgridlockappearedovertheinterpretationoftheexperiments thatledtoquantummechanics,andthatdebatestillcontinuestoday.Atstakeisnothinglessthantheimportantquestionofwhetherthe universeiscompletelydeterministic,orwhetheritispartlyindeterministic.Fornow,theindeterministshavetheupperhand,withtheir Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, but they have triumphed because they have persuaded more people with their metaphysicalarguments,notbecausedecisiveexperimentshavesettledthematterintheirfavor.

4.TheHarmonyTheory
Theaboveexamplesservetoillustrateaseriousdeficiencywithaconfrontationaltheoryoftheinteractionbetweenscienceandreligion:it is at best an oversimplification of the relationship, and at worst a complete mischaracterization. During the heyday of scientific advancementinthemodernperiod,countlessthinkershavefoundthemselvesadheringtoreligiouscommitmentsandaddingtoscientific knowledge at the same time. People like Descartes, Newton, Pascal, Boyle, Kepler, Gassendi, and many more have sought the harmonization of science and religion. In his essay Of Atheism, Francis Bacon argued that recent advances in science (experimental philosophy),whichsupplantedthescholasticapproachtophysicswithitsfourelements,providedafirmfoundationforbeliefinGods existence.Hesaid, Godneverwroughtmiracletoconvinceatheism,becauseHisordinaryworksconvinceit.Itistruethatalittlephilosophyinclineth mansmindtoatheismbutdepthinphilosophybringethmensmindsabouttoreligion:forwhilethemindofmanlookethupon secondcausesscattered,itmaysometimesrestinthem,andgonofartherbutwhenitbeholdeththechainofthemconfederate andlinkedtogether,itmustneedsflytoProvidenceandDeity.Nay,eventhatschoolwhichismostaccusedofatheismdothmost demonstratereligion.Foritisathousandtimesmorecredible,thatfourmutableelements,andoneimmutablefifthessenceduly andeternallyplaced,neednoGodthanthatanarmyofinfinitesmallportions,orseedsunplaced,shouldhaveproducedthis orderandbeautywithoutadivineMarshall(Bacon667).

Inasimilarvein,theReformerJohnCalvinencouragedChristianstostudynaturethroughscientificinvestigation,becausesciencewasthe studyofGodshandiwork.Assuch,itbothhonoredtheCreatorandtaughtcreaturesabouttheonewhomadethem. SentimentslikeCalvinsarestillexpressedbymanyexperimentalresearcherswhoholdtoreligiousbeliefs.Tothem,thestudyofnature hasledustounderstandtheworldasbeingvastlymorecomplexandintricatethananyoneeverknewbefore.Becausetheybelievethe worldisthedirectresultofGodscreativeactivity,advancesinsciencehaveserved,inWilliamPaleyswords,toincreasetheadmirationof thecontrivanceofnaturesworkings.Sciencehasnotrefutedtheirviewoftheworld:ithasconfirmedandstrengthenedit.

5.TheIndifferenceTheory
Still others argue that science and religion make declarations that are completely unrelated to each other. On this theory, science and religionareattendingtodisparateissues,andtheanswerstheygivehavenoimplicationsfortheotherdiscipline.Sciencepertainstothe classificationofempiricalobservationsreligionpertainstoethics,ritual,andpropositions(suchastheassertionthatadivinebeingexists) thathavenoempiricalentailments. Unlike the conflict model, where religious claims and scientific claims are seen to falsify each other, this description makes scientific declarationsexemptfromreligiousscrutinyandviceversa.Oneleadingreligiousfigureofthetwentiethcentury,KarlBarth,espousedthis view.Inalettertohisniece,Barthsaid, Hasnooneexplainedtoyouinyourseminarthatonecanaslittlecomparethebiblicalcreationstoryandascientifictheorylike that of evolution as one can compare, shall we say, an organ and a vacuumcleanerthat there can be as little question of harmonybetweenasofcontradiction?(Johnson4)

Barthsclaimisthatagulfseparatesscienceandreligion.Theirdeliberationscannomorebecomparedthancananastronautandthe numberseven.

a.FactversusFaith?
Whenitisadvocated,thispositionfrequentlydrawsontheperceiveddistinctionbetweenquestionsoffactandquestionsoffaith.This often touted difference is, despite its ubiquity, a murky one. Typically, the characterization is that faith is a question of belief without evidence,orevenbeliefinthepresenceofwhatshouldnormallybetakenasdecisivelyrefutingevidence.Fact,ontheotherhand,iswhatis tangibleandcertain.Religiouscommitmentsarefaithcommitmentsonthispositiontheclaimsofsciencearefactual(eveniftheyareat leasttheoreticallyopenforrevisioninthefuture).Butthisdepictionisrifewithdifficulties.Firstofall,itseemsthatFisafactsimply meansFistrue.Therefore,ifitistruethatGodexists,forexample,itisafactthatGodexists.Butperhapstheconnoteddifferenceis bettercapturedbydefiningfactsthisway:FisafactifandonlyifFistrueandobvious.Thiswillnotdoeither,however,formanythings thataretakenasfactsarefarfromobvious.Thatapparentlysolidbodies,liketables,consistalmostcompletelyofemptyspaceisthought tobeafacttaughtusbyatomictheorybutthatthistableconsistsmostlyofemptyspaceisfarfromobviousfrommyownexperienceofit. Maybe,then,FisafactmeansFistrueandexpertsagreethatFistrue.Inthatcase,though,ifthetermexpertsdoesntapplyonlyto scientificexperts,theclaimsofreligiousexpertscouldcountasfactsaswell,andiftheyclaimthatGodexists,itwouldbeafactualclaim.It cannotbecounteredherethatGodexistsisnotverifiedbythelaypersonseverydayexperience,forneitheristhefactthattablesare mostlyemptyspace. If one continues to refine the definition of fact to preserve a meaningful distinction between matters of fact and faith, one might be temptedtotrythisrevision:FisafactmeansFistrueandempiricallyverifiable.Yetthisapproachhasdifficultiesbecausethereisa controversyoverwhatcountsasbeingempiricallyverifiable.PhilosophersofscienceinfluencedbyKarlPopperarguethatscientificclaims arerefutablebutneververifiable.Otherphilosophersofsciencearguethatscientificclaimsareverifiablebutusuallyveryindirectly.For example,thattherewerenohumansonearththreemillionyearsagoisntsomethingwecandirectlyviewbecausewecantgobackthree millionyearsagoandlook.Theevidencefortherebeingnohumansisindirect,thoughempirical.Stillotherswouldarguethattheclaim thattherewerenohumansonearththreemillionyearsagoisnotempiricallyverifiablesimplybecausenoonecannowdirectlyviewthe past.Inlightoftheseproblems,onemightdefineafactinanewway:FisafactmeansFistrueandisascientificclaim.This,ofcourse, istogiveupthegamecompletelyandsuccumbtoameretautologybecausesayingscientificclaimsaredifferentfromreligiousclaims becausescientificclaimsarescientificishardlyilluminating. ComingfromtheotherdirectionandsupposingthatFisafactmeanssimplyFistrue,thereisstilltheproblemofdefiningfaith.Fisa matteroffaithcannotbeunderstoodasFistrue,sothereisapparentlyadistinctionbetweenmattersoffaithandfacts.Butwhatisthe difference, and does it separate religion from science? Simply stating that F is a matter of faith means F is not a fact will not do certainlymattersoffaithareatleastpossiblytrue,andiftheyarepossiblytruetheyarepossiblyfacts. It seems that the distinction has to do with evidence: F is a matter of faith means F is unsupported by evidence. If this is said of religiousbeliefs,however,itisclearlyfalse.Forexample,thereistheevidenceoftestimonyinfavoroftheclaimthatJesusrosefromthe dead. One typically allows testimony to serve as evidence for a belief (for example, Jones believes that his friend Smith is at the store becauseSmithswifetoldhimso,andsheisnotknowntolieaboutsuchthings).Or,considertheargumentsofferedinfavoroftheism:the cosmologicalargument,teleologicalargument,ontologicalargument,moralargument,andmorearegiveninsupportofreligiousbelief. Thus,itwouldbefalsethatthereisnoevidenceforreligiousclaims.PerhapsweshouldretreattosayingFisamatteroffaithmeansFis insufficientlyunsupportedbyevidence.Butitisverydifficulttosettleonagooddefinitionofinsufficiently.

Furthermore,evenifsomereligiousclaimsareunsupportedbyevidence,thatdoesnotputreligiononshakiergroundthanscience,for sciencealsomakesclaimsunsupportedbyevidence,orsosomescholarshaveargued.Thatthesensesgenerallyreportthetruthaboutthe worldisnotaclaimsupportedbyevidenceanyevidencethatwouldbecitedassupportiveoftheclaimwouldonlybesupportiveifthe claimisalreadyknowntobetrue.Thesameistrueofmanypropositionsassumedbyscientists:thatknowledgeoftheworldispossible,or thatscientificexplanationsshouldonlyrefertonaturalcauses,orthatallthatexistsisthematerialworld.Thesepropositionsarenomore supportedbyempiricalevidencethantheircontraries,thatknowledgeoftheworldisimpossible,orthatscientificexplanationsmayinvoke Godasacause,orthatthematerialworldisnotallthatexists.Thus,itisargued,sciencemakesmanyclaimsunsupportedbyevidence,and perhapsunsupportablebyevidence. Inpromotingtheideathatsciencetranscendstheevidence,ithasbeensuggestedthatintheGalileoaffair,forexample,boththefaith claimsandthescientificclaimshadmuchincommon:theChurchspositionwassupportedbyevidence,eventhoughtheirpositionwould be considered religious as well. For that matter, Galileos own position on heliocentrism was lacking sufficient evidence to count as empirically wellestablished. Indeed, the whole history of natural theology is an effort to harmonize religious belief with evidence and rationalargument.AndlikeGalileo,Darwinalsointroducedanelementoffaithintohisscientificassessmentwhenhesaidhistheorywould besupportedbythefutureworkofgeologistsandpaleontologists.Hisgradualismturnedouttobecontradictedbythefossilrecordheput somuchhopein. Presumablyonecandistinguishbetweenclaimsthataregenerallyagreeduponforinstance,thattherearematerialobjectsandthosethat aremorecontroversialforinstance,thatthetextJosephSmithtranslatedfromthegoldenplateshereceivedisHolyScripture.Butifthe separationoffactfromfaithjustamountstoseparatinglesswidelyacceptedpremisesfrommorewidelyacceptedones,onecouldcarry thatseparationoutinmanywayswithunexpected,andunwanted,results.Ifwetakeapollacrossoursociety,theresultisthatitisfew believethatparticlescanbehaveaswaves,asquantummechanicsimplies,butmanybelievethatGodexists,butthefirstclaimisscientific factwhereasthesecondisreligious.WouldntrelianceonthepollresultmakeitafactthatGodexistsandmakeitonlyamatteroffaith thatquantummechanicsiscorrect?Thathardlyseemsliketherightresult.

6.Conclusion
Therelationshipbetweenscienceandreligionisfrequentlycommentedon,butrarelyunderstoodwithclarity.Thoughveryfewpeople woulddenytheimportanceofreligionorofscience,itisdifficulttoseewhattheirimportanceistoeachother.Onthehostilitytheory,they makeincompatibleclaims,andtheyposegraveriskstoeachother,andtosociety.Whichcampendangerssocietyreligionorscienceand whichcamphelpsitisthepointofdisagreement.Butonanothertheory,thetwoarenotopposedatall.Accordingtosomecommentators, religionandscienceworktogethertopresentafullerunderstandingoftheworldbymutuallyenlighteningeachother.Stillotherpeople think that science and religion pose no risks to each other, but they do not support each other either they are simply concerned with isolatedsetsofquestions.Sinceitisunlikelythateitherscienceorreligionwillpassfromthestageanytimesoon,itis,andwillcontinueto be,orthourtimetoreflectontheirrelationship.

7.ReferencesandFurtherReading
Asimov,Isaac.InTheCanadianAtheist,Issue1,Winter1994. Bacon,Francis.EssaysandNewAtlantis.Roslyn,NY:WalterJ.BlackInc.,1969. Brooke,JohnHedley,andGeoffreyCantor.ReconstructingNature:TheEngagementofScienceandReligion.Edinburgh:T&TClark, 1998. Blackwell,RichardJ.GalileoGalilei.InScienceandReligion:AHistoricalIntroduction.Baltimore:TheJohnsHopkinsUniversity Press,2002. Durant,John.Ed.DarwinismandDivinity:EssaysonEvolutionandReligiousBelief.Oxford:Blackwell,1985. Fantoli,Annibale.Galileo:ForCopernicanismandfortheChurch.Trans.GeorgeV.Coyne.2nded.VaticanCity:VaticanObservatory, 1996. Ferngren,GaryB.Ed.TheHistoryofScienceandReligionintheWesternTradition:AnEncyclopedia.NewYork:Garland,2000. Ferngren,GaryB.Ed.ScienceandReligion:AHistoricalIntroduction.Baltimore:TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,2002. Gilbert,James.RedeemingCulture:AmericanReligioninanAgeofScience.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1997. Harrison,Peter.TheBible,Protestantism,andtheRiseofNaturalScience.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1998. Hooykaas,Reijer.ReligionandtheRiseofModernScience.GrandRapids,Mich.:Eerdmans,1972. Hooykaas,R.ReligionandtheRiseofModernScience.Edinburgh:ScottishAcademicPress,1972. Howell,KennethJ.GodsTwoBooks:CopernicanCosmologyandBiblicalInterpretationinEarlyModernScience.NotreDame: UniversityofNotreDamePress,2002. Jammer,Max.EinsteinandReligion:PhysicsandTheology.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1999.IncludesChristianresponses. Johnson,R.C.TheLegacyofKarlBarth,Reflection.NewHaven,CT:May1969,Vol.66. Livingstone,DavidN.,D.G.Hart,andMarkA.Noll.Eds.EvangelicalsandScienceinHistoricalPerspective.NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress,1999. Lindberg,DavidC.TheBeginningsofWesternScience:TheEuropeanScientificTraditioninPhilosophical,Religious,andInstitutional Context,600B.C.toA.D.1450.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1992. Lindberg,DavidC.andRonaldL.Numbers.Eds.WhenScienceandChristianityMeet.Chicago:TheUniversityofChicagoPress,2003. McGrath,AlisterE.ScienceandReligion:AnIntroduction.Oxford:BlackwellPublishingLtd.,1999. Ospovat,Dov.TheDevelopmentofDarwinsTheory:NaturalHistory,NaturalTheology,andNaturalSelection,18381859. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1981. Ruse,Michael.CanaDarwinianBeaChristian?Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2001. Stenmark,Mikael.RationalityinScience,Religion,andEverydayLife.NotreDame:UniversityofNotreDamePress,1995. Stenmark,Mikael.ScienceandReligion:SomeHistoricalPerspectives.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1991.

AuthorInformation
BradleySickler Email:flosfy@gmail.com NorthwesternCollege U.S.A.

Lastupdated:February11,2009|Originallypublished:February/11/2009

ArticleprintedfromInternetEncyclopediaofPhilosophy:http://www.iep.utm.edu/srel/

CopyrightTheInternetEncyclopediaofPhilosophy.Allrightsreserved.