Ian Barbour: When Science Meets Religion (Conflict)

In his book When Science Meets Religion, Ian Barbour suggests four classifications for exploring the relationship between science and religion. These include Conflict, Independence, Dialogue, and Integration. In my next few essays, I’ll provide an overview of each category.

Later I’ll discuss what I believe are some of the strengths and weaknesses of the views contained within each category in light of their potential benefits for science and religion and for the well-being of humans, animals, and the natural world.

Category 1—Conflict
Conflict is the first of Barbour’s classifications of the relationship between science and religion. In this category, Barbour juxtaposes the views of the two most extreme positions, scientific materialism and Biblical literalism. Proponents of both positions claim to offer the literal truth about the history of nature, with the result that a person must choose between the Biblical version and the scientific one.

This is essentially a battle between who owns an all-encompassing explanation of reality. For the materialists, physical phenomena, particularly as can be discerned from examining its smallest components, is all that constitutes the world. Science, therefore, is the only valid path to knowledge.1 Religion is rejected because it cannot provide observable data by which its claims can be tested.

Furthermore, science is viewed as an objective, progressive search for the truth, while religion is seen as subjective, rigid, and irrational. Conspicuous examples of materialists include Richard Dawkins and E.O Wilson in the area of evolutionary biology. Both believe that genetics and biology fully explain all human behavior.

In the area of cosmology, some astronomers claim that the role of chance in establishing the physical constants that enable life in the universe are incompatible with theistic views of a purposeful universe.

In contrast, Biblical literalists believe that scientific theories of evolution and creation undermine God as the source of the natural and moral order and the unique place of humans in creation. Here, the tension between chance and purpose is the most prominent; materialists believe that chance, whether in evolution, quantum physics, or astronomy rules out the existence of God.2

Literalists generally respond by rejecting certain scientific theories, especially Darwinism. Alternatively, in some cases, they try to find the science hidden in the Bible. An example of this is physicist Gerald Schroeder, who argues that we can reconcile scientific time scales with the first creation story in Genesis by equating six of God’s days to fifteen billion earth years.

Notes
1. The term for this is “scientism.”
2. Here’s a nice example of this view. It’s a comment in response to the article about Francisco J. Ayala in today’s NY Times. It would seem JimL holds some specific presuppositions about the nature of God:

Evolution is all about random mutation and natural selection. The very definition excludes the need for a guiding force. If evolution is “guided” what is the point? Why not just have god create all as it is and [s]imply create the illusion that there is random change and selection of beneficial variants?

Religion creates more problems than it purports to solve. it is a tragic waste of time.

— JimL, NorthernCalifornia

Citation
Barbour, Ian G. (2000). When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers, or Partners? New York: Harper San Francisco, 2000.

Image: Beham, (Hans) Sebald (1500-1550): Fortuna, 1541. Courtesy Wikimedia Commons.

God and Evolution

Check out this article in the New York Times today called “Roving Defender of Evolution, and Room for God.” The subject of the article is scientist and former Dominican priest, Francisco J. Ayala, who argues that belief in God and evolutionary theory are completely compatible.

This article reminded me of a paper I wrote not long ago on various views of the relationship of science and religion, based on the work of Templeton Prize winner Ian Barbour.

I’ll begin posting sections of that paper later today.

Sorting Legend from Myth

I came across this comment today, which was posted in response to an article called “Faith of Our Fathers” by Timothy Egan:

The author lays out the quote “Religion has always been about faith and a certain degree of mythology” as if it were revelation. Subsequent sentences show that the author doesn’t know what a myth is. A myth is not something “untrue” in a theological context. It is something that explains the way things are. Theologians talk about the creation myth without implying a lack of truth.

A legend is the tale of a great hero of the past.

So the story of the parting of the Red Sea, and the story of the miracle at the wedding in Canaa should be called “legends” if one isn’t approaching them from the standpoint of belief.

A myth would be “how the leopard got his spots.” A legend would be “how Ulysses got home from the Trojan War.”

Both myths and legends can be full of truth, more true than the mere photographing and cataloging of observable facts.

— Posted by WDannen

I found the distinction the author makes between myth and legend to be quite interesting. I do, however, wonder whether you can make such a clean separation of the two. The legend of Ulysses, for example, says something about “the way things are” from a certain cultural perspective. But it also gives us insight into contemporary human experience.

As a theologian, I read Biblical stories keeping in mind that they say something about the ways things were and, to an extent, about the way things are, although, both are always interpreted from the standpoint of our values and presuppositions. And so, I think the author may be oversimplifying the role of the theologian. Still, I find the distinction useful for thinking about the significance of Biblical narratives.

I also think the author’s last sentence is spot-on correct. Myths and legends can lead us to a more thorough grasp of what is real, beyond what we experience through our basic senses. This is one reason why I find so-called literal readings of the Bible so troubling. They miss the deeper meanings, complexities, and beauty of the texts.

For a related discussion, see “Seeing the Sacred.”

Photo: My cat, Shimsi, pondering the difference between legend and myth.

Sheep Shearing 101

My post the other day on sheep shearing made me think about the ethics of the practice. I’ve heard mixed reports about shearing. Some say it’s cruel, others say it’s necessary for the comfort and health of the sheep (they can overheat and get insect infestations).

I wondered whether it was inherently inhumane under any circumstances.

As luck would have it, a friend of mine has three sheep who were scheduled to be sheared this week. She and her husband adopted all three from the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (MSPCA). She graciously invited me to witness their annual de-wooling.

Here are a few photos I took (the last photo is of an affectionate goat who head butted me and nibbled my clothing as I watched the shearing process):

The shearer is a thirty-year veteran who trained in Ireland, and who clips the old-fashioned way using hand shears. My friend warned me that I might be a bit startled by the way he handled the sheep. He needed to muscle them around a bit to get them in position. I found that I was unbothered by it because he seemed no more assertive than necessary to maneuver a 200 pound sheep. I’ve made similar moves just trying to wash my dogs’ ears.

The sheep were a bit nervous as they watched him prepare. (They looked like me when I’m waiting to see my dentist.) During the shearing, they groaned a little when placed in less than graceful positions, but they never cried in pain, even when they were nicked, which happened only a couple of times.

It was interesting to witness how the sheep behaved out of concern for each other. For example, one of them would lightly touch his nose against the nose of the one being sheared.

Afterwards the sheep were let out of their pen into the yard. They spent a great deal of time smelling each other (the goats joined in as well). The most dominant of the three also tried to mount the others. My friend told me there’s always a bit of upheaval afterwards as the animals adjust to the new scents.

Overall, my experience was that hand shearing is completely humane if done by an adept and respectful handler (which this man was). I asked my friend what she knew about electric shearing. She told me that her sheep had only been sheared this way once, and were stressed out by the noise. She thinks this is because they’re used to being hand sheared.

At the same time, I can easily see how electric shearing in intensive agriculture could be stress filled and painful for sheep, particularly with hasty or insensitive handlers. However, I need to do some more homework here.

I also can see how sheep shearing contests judged primarily by speed could be largely inhumane because of the sensitivity of the sheep, but again, I need to research this a bit.

See also:
Talk to the Animals
Finding the Way Back with Animals
Meeting God in Relationship with Animals

Obama’s ‘Bitter’ Remark

The other day, Dan Schnur had an op-ed in the New York Times on Barack Obama’s suggestion that working-class voters in Pennsylvania “cling” to religion, guns, and xenophobia to cope with bitterness over their economic conditions.

His basic argument is that the Democratic party is “continually vexed” by people who vote according to their values, even to the detriment of their economic interests. According to Schnur, Obama’s recent gaffe in Pennsylvania demonstrates that he doesn’t get it either.

Usually, I disagree with Schnur, but in this case, I think he’s right about one thing. Democratic candidates are not particularly good at understanding the relationship between values and actions.

Democrats, and in general liberal and progressive groups, tend to respond to issues. They adopt causes, which is very important. But they generally avoid investing in long-term programs focused on making sweeping shifts in individual and social values. Conservatives, on the other hand, have been putting money into think tanks for the last 40 years to do just that (the Heritage Foundation is a good example). Their patience has paid off.

I think many liberals and progressives also tend to make a sort of ’scientistic’ (not to be confused with scientific) mistake. That is, they believe that if most people were to view the ‘facts’ on the ground—the so-called practical matters—from a purely objective perspective (presumably their perspective), they would no longer be ‘distracted’ by things like religious values. Meanwhile, the values implied in their own views go largely unexamined.

Furthermore, what is practical is often narrowly construed. Thus many people (not just liberals and progressives) overlook the practical nature of values. How can values be practical? Because our values say something about what we believe it means to live a good life. And, when our values are aligned with our actions, it feels satisfying. We feel whole. Living by one’s values is so important to people that it can override some very pressing material concerns. This is true not just for the wealthy, but also for people who struggle to pay the bills.

With respect to religion in particular, I’ve spent the last three years in seminary studying a wide range of theological viewpoints. No doubt there is a coping component to religion. But many people err in assuming that that’s all religion is about, and in turn, belittle religious experience. For many people, religion is not merely or even primarily functional. It is redemptive. The feeling that one is recovering one’s spirit to become a whole human being is a powerful motivator, particularly when it so often feels like life chips away at our souls.

All that said, I doubt Obama intended to demean religious faith, and I think that the press has generally over-reacted to his comments. But unfortunately they did come across as a little condescending and maybe a bit too progressive in the sense described above.

For more on the shortage of liberal think tanks, see:

Democratic Think Tank Taking Shape (CommonDreams.org)
Rich Liberals Vow to Fund Think Tanks (Washington Post).
The Rockridge Era Ends (Rockridge Institute)

Photo: Barack Obama Shaking Hands, copyright Trilobite | Dreamstime.com