I am teaching an introduction to science and religion short course the 2nd half of this semester. I have some general ideas of where I would like to go with it and a text in place, but I thought I would seek input from others… if you could have one topic in the course, what would it be?
We will, of course, be considering evolution vs/and creation as that is usually the student’s primary interest, academically and especially, personally. But I want to cover much more than that to introduce students to the broader area of science and religion and show them that perhaps evolution and creation isn’t where all of our focus should be. Evolutionary psychology and sociobiology, neuroscience, behavioral genetics, ethics and creation care, quantum physics, etc. all lie at the interface of science and religion and are fascinating topics for discussion.
So, I ask the reader: if you could discuss one topic and one topic alone in a course on science and religion (other than evolution vs/and creation), what would you choose and why?
A biologist's view of science & theology 
That’s a great question.. I feel like neuroscience is an up and coming battle so that may be helpful. creation care is an important one that people tend to unfortunately disregard as “up in the air”.
LikeLike
I’m just browsing around and saw your question…
I’d have to say that methods of acquiring and evaluating knowledge is most fundamental – i.e., epistemology vs. revelation. Then there’s the whole God vs. Nature thing – i.e., the common religious view that God is evident in the works of Nature vs. the pantheist or naturalist view that there’s just Nature.
But pretty much any discussion on the topic of causation would do I’d imagine, which would bring you ultimately to the topic of Agency and Theory of Mind.
But that’s just if you were teaching Science vs. Religion in the general sense, which I guess you are. If you were teaching Science vs. Christianity on the other hand, of course you’d have to discuss the specifics of the efficacy of Prayer, evidence for and against the existence of spirits capable of impregnating women, evidence for a Heaven or a Hell, what exactly “sin” is and what “salvation” means, etc., etc.
LikeLike
I’d go for the evolution of religion – not just because it’s what I myself have chosen to focus on in my writing but because it shows that just as we consider bipedalism, technology, language, or art in evolutionary perspective, so can we consider religion. My approach is to look at the deepest roots of what later became religion, by considering empathy and compassion, ritual behavior around death and burials, imagination beyond the here-and-now, and so on, in primates/hominids, but there are compelling other approaches too, really a very healthy literature in anthropology and psychology. (I’m not big on most evolutionary psychology explanations or “God gene” explanations, but they’re out there too.)
LikeLike
2 thoughts.
1) The obvious is the exegetical approaches to the creation texts in Scripture.
2) How young earth affects our view of creation care ethics. Such as the logic – If the world is young and if it is going to be destroyed eventually when Christ comes back… then this world is disposable.
A quote from John MacArthur is worth looking at:
The environmental movement is consumed with trying to preserve the planet forever. But we know that isn’t in God’s plan… The earth we inhabit is not a permanent planet. It is, frankly, a disposable planet—it is going to have a very short life. It’s been around about six thousand years or so—that’s all—and it may last a few thousand more. And then the Lord is going to destroy it…. I’ve told environmentalists that if they think humanity is wrecking the planet, wait until they see what Jesus does to it. Peter says God is going to literally turn it in an atomic implosion so that the whole universe goes out of existence. (emphasis added)[http://www.gty.org/Resources/issues/594]
LikeLike
Extending the conversation from evolution and religion to how we relate to nature and how we view religion with respect to nature would be a very good next step. I am distressed with the disconnect that most people have with respect to nature. And much of the disconnect has religious overtones. That disconnect is causing a great deal of destruction.
LikeLike
Could look into and discuss the field of Nerotheology and its possible implications.
Check out the work of Dr. Michael Persinger at Laurentian University (the university I attend up here in Sudbury Ont, Canada). Starting in the 80s and continuing up to now he’s done work with electromagnetic fields and investigating whether changing the field variance around specific areas of the brain would/could induce (mystical) religious experiences. The most famous of his experiments is known as the “God Helmet”.
A few of his published papers:
— “The Neuropsychiatry of Paranormal Experiences”:
http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/13/4/515
— can’t find a public PDF, but should find and read “Religious and mystical experiences as artifacts of temporal lobe function: a general hypothesis.”… here’s the abstract:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6664802
— http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/3788805/1743495794/name/St-Pierre+%26+Persinger+2006.pdf
other articles of possible interest:
— http://jop.sagepub.com/content/22/6/621
He have a class up here via our Religious Studies department (which is where I’m majoring) that is exactly the topic you’re teaching on. Super interesting course, and made for some great discussions!
LikeLike
Neuroscience.
LikeLike
Dan… good thoughts. I was planning to touch upon that in the first major lecture and also look specifically at the methods of knowing for science and then the methods of knowing for religion.
Barbara… I would LOVE to talk about that! Any specific books, excerpts, or articles you have in mind? And, if you’re in Chicago, remember you have a standing invitation…
Kurt… I hadn’t seen that MacArthur quote. Wow. That’s a doozy.
Maria… have you read Phil Hefner’s The Human Factor: Evolution, Culture, Religion? I’ve been blogging through it recently (albeit slowly).
Sean… I’m somewhat familiar with that work but many thanks for the specific links! I’ve read more by Newberg and Beauregard though…
v02468 and Kim… done and done.
LikeLike
Depends if you ask me as a scientist, as a theologian or as a pastor/Christian.
As a scientist I would emphasize the history (rise) of modern science, trying to explain how science works (Kuhn etc) – and how not. In particular I would focus on why science needs to be independent from religious or ideological assumptions, as far as possible (Example: I can write down the Schroedinger equation for the hydrogen atom – and any physicist in the world (who knows his maths and quantum mechanics well!) can solve it – regardles if s/he be Atheist, Buddist, Wicca witch, Catholic, Baptist Muslim); science as a universal language, its power lies in this independence – but that means as a Christian, who is a scientist, I have to “put God in parenthesis” as it were, when I am doing science.
LikeLike
As a theologian (assuming we adress Christian Theology – that is all I can do) I would focus on how different readings of the bible relate to each other and how it came about that over the last couple of centuries the biblicist / literalist / fundamentalist approach (cf “inerrancy”, “infallability” etc) has come to prominence, though christianity has happily survived one and a half millenia without such crutches.
Bottom line: to demonstrate, how even a “critical” reading of the bible can make (religious) sense. And a sense that is much easier to reconcile with our current level of knowledge and insight into the nature of… nature.
LikeLike
There is so many great things to discuss it is hard to choose one! I think the most important subject is evolutionary psychology and sociobiology. There has been considerable work done to give a defense of theistic evolution, but the next critical juncture is the role of evolutionary science in describing human nature. So if we accept that evolution is how humanity came to be, what is the role of different evolutionary processes in forming aspects of human nature and how does this relate to theological anthropology, Imago Dei, and other aspects.
LikeLike
James, Amen! And that’s really where my personal interests lie. But that’s probably good for Science and Religion: Part 2. We’ll see how much I can address in this intro class. It’s funny that you commented today as I was planning on (finally) reading the article you sent me in December…
LikeLike
That is kinda funny because I actually had time to read and respond to your blog! Send along any comments if you get a chance to read it. Actually Plantinga is coming to Azusa Pacific in a few weeks and talking about science and religion and evolutionary psychology and religion. I’ll be interested to see what he has to say, especially since he thinks there is some traction between Biblical scholarship and EP, hmmmm? I haven’t read much about his take on Science and Religion, so I’ll need to check that out. Have a nice weekend.
LikeLike
James,
I don’t know much of Plantinga other than what people say about him, since I haven’t read any of his work. I would have assumed evolutionary psychology was a big no-no for him though. Doesn’t he deny evolution in general? Maybe my “sources” are misguided.
LikeLike
That’s what I would have thought as well, so when I saw the abstract for his talk I was somewhat confused. I am part of a panel that will respond to his work the following week so I’ll let you know what I find out.
LikeLike
Keep me posted!
LikeLike
I recommend teaching about fractals in nature -maybe too heavy on the math side of science but so amazing. I love the repeating nature of the universe -how atoms and molecules align so that same shapes are repeated over and over again, from the cosmos to the microscopic.
LikeLike
These are great comments responding to a great question. I would also add (at the risk of making your course too overwhelming) bioethical issues, such as end-of-life care and reproductive technology. Maybe also sci-fi stuff like AI and cloning, though I honestly think questions about when medicine becomes meddling are understudied and important.
LikeLike
R… how about an overview on the beauty of nature that is revealed by scientific exploration? You’re right, fractals may be a bit over their head, but an overview would be good.
Bethany… bioethics has been requested by the students so we’re definitely doing a day on that. That scifi stuff isn’t as fiction as we think, so they need to know that the technology (or framework for the technology) is out there already, but we must use ethics to decide how or how not to limit their use.
Good stuff everyone!
LikeLike
@R
I think it is possible to present (and appreciate) the beauty of fractals (and nature in general), without going into complicated technical (mathematical) detail. But what then? Follow the classic “aestetic” arguments of theology? Is that, what you had in mind?
LikeLike
I find that prophetic utterances tend to have a fractal dimension to them. I find it very interesting that ‘God calls his son out of Egypt’ can be looked at as the Israel nation, Christologically, and anthroprologically. The first humans came out of Africa through Egypt.
The same kind of view can be seen with the call of Abram. God calls Abram out from Ur. He calls the Israelites out from among the surrounding tribes. He calls Christians out of the World. He called the fish out of the sea.
LikeLike
Hi Justin, you’re getting such great answers here. In answer to your question to me, I wonder if van Huyssteen’s book “Alone in the World?” and the exchange some of us had about it in the pages of Zygon a few years ago would be useful. Also how about the volume James Proctor edited in 2009, Envisioning Nature, Science & Religion? I have a chapter in there and have found the other contributions enlightening.
LikeLike
@Morutti-
Getting to the “what then” in the beauty of nature can be a little dangerous in theology. Not because there aren’t good things to learn but because it can end up sounding a little trite. I’m almost afraid that if the discussion is too reductionist it won’t hold the interest of the students.
LikeLike
@R
that is exactly why I posed the question. While for Aristotle and for a lot of Medival Scholastics the connection between beauty and truth (or between aestetics and religion, if you will) required not that much explanation, it won’t be so with our present generation, I would think…
LikeLike
Hi Justin,
This is my first encounter with your blog… an interesting post and question. I just returned from the Big Tent Christianity Conference in Phoenix, so will mention that science/religion was a topic covered a bit, but only in the context of evolution/creation that I noticed.
My main backgrounds are psychology and theology, but I’ve always been quite interested in the “harder” sciences also (while arguing that psych IS science in good part). Now that I’ve looked a fair bit outside the typical boundaries of both theology and science, I realize there is a huge “category” being ignored (rather purposely) by both: what we often call parapsychology or the “paranormal.” I’d definitely make this a subject, and in a central, bridging position. It also is the arena of studies holding particular potential, and to where we inevitably are headed.
Now, I love the neuroscience area also, and agree with commenters re. that. What I refer to would go broader than biology, into physics (hyperdimensional, subtle energy, nonduality, etc.) and into a look at the history and inner workings of several scientific fields such as archeology, anthropology and paleontology. Here Kuhn opens the door, but one can see much more “inner room” details via a work like “Forbidden Archeology” and later books by Michael Cremo. There is indeed a “hidden history” of major, core things science has suppressed in similar ways to how the church once suppressed its scientifically-minded members (well, not literal execution, but often career execution).
But perhaps the best single “text” (for you, not most students) I know of for the parapsychology area in relation to science and religion is the very scholarly work of David Ray Griffin, “Parapsychology, Philosophy, and Spirituality.” It is largely an apologetic directed more to mainstream science that to religion; but it speaks to both. This, to me, is one remaining major, critical area being increasingly studied, but not yet taken mainstream, that can/should help rectify the silly fighting so much seen between science and religion, and the blindness perpetuated by it.
LikeLike
I’d say the idea of the Christian theology of nature (as opposed to natural theology) — it’s value to God but distinction from God and non-divinity. And in connection with that our responsibility to be stewards of nature.
But I also like the idea of going back to some basic epistemology, like pointing out that fallible human interpretation can mess up our understanding of nature (science) and our understanding of Scripture (doctrine), and that apparent “conflict” is typically not at the fundamental level but rather due to interpretation on one side or the other. There is a helpful presentation and diagram on this in the Haarsmas’ book “Origins”.
Oh, and a little history to debunk the “warfare” thesis would also be a good thing.
LikeLike