ASA - April 2002: Re: Science and religion: two ways of knowing

Previous message: Keith B Miller: "RE: Science and religion: two ways of knowing"
Maybe in reply to: Shuan Rose: "Science and religion: two ways of knowing"
Next in thread: Woodward Norm Civ WRALC/TIEDM: "RE: Science and religion: two ways of knowing"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

My problem with the independence approach is that it largely accepts that science is neutral with regard to religious beliefs. Recent philosophers of science have all but reached a consensus on this point: the epistemological objectivity of science is a myth.

Science is a human cultural activity. Consequently, it is tainted, as is all human activity, with the cultural-religious presuppositions of the scientist (i.e. her worldview). N R Hanson (Patterns of Discovery: An Inquiry into the Conceptual Foundations of Science ,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958) has shown that observation, a foundation of science, is theory-dependent. Theories are also worldview-dependent. Scientist cannot escape their culture; science is not done in a vacuum. We cannot divorce science from worldview. Worldviews in turn are inherently religious; they are based on ultimate commitments that cannot be empirically or even rationally verified (or for that matter falsified); they are religious. Science and religious beliefs are then intimately related. We can summarize this argument thus:

1. We all have a worldview

2. A worldview is shaped by religious commitments

3. All human activity is shaped by worldviews

4. Science is a human activity

Therefore,

5. Science and religious commitments are related; and

6. Science is not neutral

This conclusion, if valid, undermines the independence approach to science and religion.

I have developed a typology for the relationship of science and religion published in Evangelical Quarterly LXXII (1) January 2000. I would be happy to e-mail a copy to anyone who would like to see it.

Steve