A Tangled History: On Science and Religion

Transcription

1 A Tangled History: On Science and Religion H. Allen Orr (Biology) Brad Weslake (Philosophy)

2 Science & Religion: A Noisy Debate Intelligent Design Creationism Content of Science Textbooks New Atheism (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens) Part of the problem is that both sides in the debate often subscribe to an astonishing number of myths. Some myths are historical, some scientific, and some philosophical. Sensible conversation is impossible unless these myths are cleared away. As we will see, no guarantee of harmony even then but at least we won't be talking nonsense... Here we focus on the Judeo-Christian tradition.

3 Outline I: A parade of myths II: Outline of our new course III: A sample topic

4 I: The Myths Myth 1: Biblical literalism was the norm throughout most of Christian history. Literalism was explicitly rejected by several Church fathers (e.g., Origen and Augustine) and became the norm only during the Reformation (Harrison).

5 Augustine Confessions (397 AD) I delighted to hear Ambrose often asserting in his sermons to the people, as a principle on which he must insist emphatically, The letter is death-dealing, but the spirit gives life. This he would tell them as he drew aside the veil of mystery and opened to them the spiritual meaning of the passages which, taken literally, would seem to mislead. Not an isolated example: The Literal Interpretation of Genesis

6 Myth 2: The mechanical philosophy had no place for God. All natural phenomena were to be explained by matter in motion. Gassendi, Descartes, and Boyle were all devout Christians. Virtually all believed God had created matter and set it in motion. Laws of nature as God's commands. Miracles defined in terms of natural laws. Virtually all believed that studying the natural world was one path to knowledge of the nature of God: [...] to treat of God from phenomena is certainly a part of natural philosophy (Newton, Principia, 1687)

7 Myth 3: Darwin's (1859) theory was universally rejected by theologians. While many objected, a number of religious thinkers embraced Darwinism. Darwinism appeared, and, under the disguise of a foe, did the work of a friend Aubrey Moore (1889) Every conceivable position was taken by religious thinkers.

8 Myth 4: Darwin became an atheist because of his theory of evolution. Darwin did not become an atheist. [My] judgment often fluctuates [...] In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more so as I grow older), but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind (Letter to John Fordyce, 7 May 1879). Other factors: o o Annie's death. Darwin's aesthetic decline.

9 From Recollections of the Development of My Mind and Character In my Journal I wrote that whilst standing in the midst of the grandeur of a Brazilian forest, it is not possible to give an adequate idea of the higher feelings of wonder, admiration & devotion, which fill & elevate the mind. I well remember my conviction that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body. But now the grandest scenes would not cause any such convictions & feelings to rise in my mind. It may be truly said that I am like a man who has become colour-blind...

10 II: Our Course: Darwin and Religion (PHL 256) An experiment in interdisciplinary teaching Conflict thesis Scientific revolution Reformation and the rise of modern science Divine voluntarism and the mechanical philosophy Enlightenment and the rise of secular culture (visit from Prof. Dorinda Outram, History)

11 Darwin and Religion (PHL 256) An experiment in interdisciplinary teaching Natural theology and design arguments before Darwin (Brad) Darwin's theory (Origin of Species) Darwin's life (Autobiography) Scientific and religious responses to Darwin Evolutionary theory and religious belief today

12 III: A Sample Topic: The decline of design arguments and the rise of natural selection A standard narrative Darwin killed design arguments and natural selection was rapidly accepted as the mechanism of evolutionary change....it has been rightly said that natural theology as a viable concept died on November 24, 1859 Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought (1982). This is wrong for historical, philosophical and scientific reasons.

13 Natural Theology and Design Arguments Utilitarian (Paley) and Idealist (Owen) design arguments Owen, Anatomy of Vertebrates (1866) Paley, Natural Theology (1802)

14 Historical and Philosophical Problems Historical Religion itself was already abandoning natural theology Some design arguments survived natural selection (eg. Asa Gray on directed variation) Conceptual Hume (1779) already destroyed the design argument (no-one noticed, because Hume wasn't read as a philosopher) From a contemporary standpoint, it can be argued that design arguments failed before Darwin (Sober, 2010)

15 Scientific Problem: Natural selection not widely accepted by biologists until the Modern Synthesis (1930) Why not? 1) Natural selection not creative...

16 2) Natural Selection Doesn t Work Under Blending Inheritance Fleeming Jenkin (1867)

17 Rescue of Natural Selection 1930: Sir Ronald Fisher (father of population genetics and modern statistics, and a devout Anglican)

18 Conclusion: Where are we now? Our situation is more difficult than Darwin's We now know that design arguments are wrong We now know that natural selection is right Does any logical space remain for the coexistence of science and religion? For example, is theistic evolution logically consistent? (Surprisingly, many philosophers of biology say it is.)

19 But... Even if religious belief is logically consistent with science, two further questions remain: Are any of these views plausible? Are they livable?