IST 1990

My Overview of the Books for IST 1990
David Bowen, 8/27/05

The authors in this course do not agree with each other. There is no one right answer presented here. Rather, the point of the course is to understand what each of the authors is saying, and hopefully to define your own views and understand how your views fit in with the range of views presented here.

Rocks of Ages by Stephen Jay Gould

• Chapters 1 and 2. Statement of NOMA - religion teaches (or should teach) about ethics and morals, while science teaches (or should teach) about the natural world. Each should confine itself to that area. There will be sharp disagreements at the boundary, but this is OK. Gould says that most people act according to NOMA, even if they are not aware that they accept it, and even if they do not call it NOMA. That is, NOMA is the normal practice and convention of most people. (In Chapter 4, Pg 176, Gould writes that accepting NOMA requires religion to withdraw from explaining the natural world, which religion did explain in earlier times, that is up until the development of modern science as presented in IST 2420.)
• Chapter 3 is generally about why NOMA is the best way to treat science and religion.
  • Chapter 3, first part - pages through 124. Gould argues the idea of a necessary war between science and religion is false, and is not intended by most scientists, or by most religious thinkers.
  • Chapter 3, second part - pages 125 through 170. When scientists or religious people have claimed dominance over the other, those claiming dominance have become bad and even evil, doing bad and evil things to the other side. That is, if either one "wins," human beings suffer. And suffer needlessly, at the hands of other human beings.
• Chapter 4 is generally about why we may have trouble accepting NOMA.
  • Chapter 4, first part - pages 173 through 207. We may want to believe that nature is good and kind, laid out to benefit humankind. We humans may also want to use the rest of nature as a guide for our own ethics and morals. However, science teaches that nature is neutral or indifferent about humans, and often causes us harm and pain. Gould argues that accepting this is part of accepting NOMA.
  • Chapter 4, second part - pages 208 through 222 (end). Irenicism is the idea that there must be peace between science and religion. One form of peace is NOMA - dividing up the turf - but there will be conflict at the border between science and religion despite the desire of irenists (those who believe in or advocate irenicism). A second form of irencism is the idea that science and religion should merge across the board, and both should teach about both ethics and morals, and about the natural world. This form of irenicism usually comes in one of two "flavors," the first argues that science should conform to religion, and the second that religion should conform to science. Gould argues against both.

Some people have said that Gould is not clear, that he changes his mind, that he doesn't say which one - science or religion - should "win" in the war between them. First, Gould says that this is the wrong thing to want - a victory for one or the other. He argues that the idea that a war is necessary is false (see his argument in the first part of Chapter 3), and further, whenever one of the two wins, humans suffer (second part of Chapter 3). In other words, we must keep science and religion separate for our own good. Second, Gould is consistent throughout in defining NOMA as the separation of science and religion into separate areas of authority, and in arguing why this should be the case, and in arguing against all other alternatives to NOMA.

Both of the other books for IST 1990 have versions of what Gould would call irenicism.

When Science Meets Religion by Ian Barbour considers (a) various aspects of modern science, such as the big bang and quantum mechanics. He also (b) considers four approaches to the interaction of science and religion, which he calls conflict, independence, dialogue and integration, although there are variations within each. To give an example of the variations, the approach "conflict," Barbour says, covers all variations from the extreme on one side (science wins out over religion, through to the extreme on the other side (religion wins out over science) Barbour also describes variations in between these extremes. And finally, (c) he writes about each area of the areas of science interacting with each approach. Barbour's own view on the interplay is "process theology" which he describes in bits and pieces throughout the book, but most completely at the end. Briefly, process theology holds that God and the natural processes of science interact at each instant and each location. This is sort of like an approach that I mentioned in class once, an approach that says that the laws of science control all of life and all of the universe, and it is God's direct intervention that makes the laws of science work. Barbour would give God a little bit more power to change things, but his God is far from all-powerful. In Barbour's own classification, he is an integrationist, what Gould would call an irenicist, but an even-handed one. Barbour would say that Gould's approach is one of independence of science and religion, with perhaps a little bit of conflict added in, to account for the arguments on the NOMA border between science and religion.

Barbour lays out the four approaches and their variations in the first Chapter. The first area of science that Barbour considers, in Chapter 2, is Astronomy and Creation, similar to the main topic of Atoms and Stars, although Barbour puts more emphasis on the current state of science that the Atoms and Stars course does. The other areas of science are Quantum Physics, the Physics of very small objects, in Chapter 3; Evolution and Continuing Creation in Chapter 4; Genetics, neuroscience and human nature, the foundation and extensions of evolution, in Chapter 5; and God and Nature, or what room is there for God to act, if there are valid scientific laws, in Chapter 6. In each area of science, Barbour first describes the current content of the science (current at the time of his writing; 2000). Read these sections carefully, because you will have difficulty reading the next sections without understanding the basic science. Then, within each Chapter, he describes how each of his four approaches, with variations, plays out in this area of science.

When Science Meets Religion, then, after the first introductory Chapter, which lays out the four approaches, is laid out like a table, as below. Each empty cell in the table is a section in the book. Taht is, consider the cell with "XXX" in it, the intersection of the row "Astronomy and Creation," and the column "Conflict." In this section of the book, Barbour considers how a Conflict approach would work in the area of Astronomy and Creation. He always quotes people holding these beliefs, so it isn't just Barbour talking here. Barbour goes through and considers each cell in a very organized manner.

Can a Darwinian Be a Christian, by Michael Ruse (this only required for four-credit version) like Gould, considers the interplay between religion and Darwinian evolution (Barbour considers other areas of science in addition). In the first Chapter, Ruse describes Darwinism or Evolution; the content, the evidence, the historical development and the current (as of 2001) status. In Chapter 2, Ruse describes Christianity - its core beliefs, recent changes, and range of doctrines. Then in the following Chapters, Ruse considers a variety of traditional Christian concerns, such as the origin of life, the problem of pain and suffering, extraterrestrials (if life on other planets is discovered, can humans still be considered the crowning glory of God's creation?) and original sin. He states common Christian approaches in each area, and shows in each case that common Christian views can be reconciled with Darwinsim. In most areas the Ruse considers, he finds that there is a substantial region of overlap, within which there is no need for a war, but note that also in each area, there are regions outside of overlap, so that conflict is possible. In some areas, such as Social Darwinism, or the evolution of human behavior, Ruse finds that Christianity can aid science. But in a related area, Sociobiology, Ruse says that science recognizes different moralities in different circumstances, in other words, that these different moralities are seen to exist. Here, the Christian has the most trouble, since most Christians believe that morals and ethics are absolute. Here, there is little overlap. Gould would call Ruse an irenicist, Barbour would call him an integrationist, although of a different sort than Barbour.

All three authors agree that there are some versions of Christianity, commonly called fundamentalist, that cannot be reconciled with some areas of science, but that for most versions of Christianity, there is no necessary conflict between science and religion. Gould and Ruse are first and foremost scientists, although anyone reading their books must recognize their commitment to morals and beliefs. Barbour is, in my view, a Christian first and foremost, but one who feels the power of scientific explanation, and wants Christianity to be compatible with science.