Last night we had our first Introduction to Science and Religion class. We talked about methods of knowing, the natures of truth, philosophy, science, and religion. It was just a snapshot of each, but the students have readings to take them a little deeper if they’re interested.
We also watched a requisite Matrix clip.
I have read a good deal in science and theology and the intersection between the two, but if I’m honest with myself I must admit that my understanding of philosophy, and importantly, it’s history, is rudimentary at best. That’s what is good about constructing from scratch an interdisciplinary class like this, you become familiar quickly with where your strengths and weaknesses lie.
And my weakness is philosophy.
We talked briefly last night about the two types of truth (necessary and empirical), the three theories of truth (correspondence, coherence, pragmatic), the basic schools of philosophy (rationalism, empiricism, and skepticism) and the issue generated by the latter when we separate the outer or external world from the inner world of thoughts and mind (from Ch. 5 in this book). In our focus on the latter, I mentioned that we can go one of three ways regarding the most important philosophical questions (this is oversimplified, but was based upon our reading for the night). We can go with Descartes the rationalist and say “I think therefore I am” and work down from there to ground our presuppositions and argue that we can find answers to our questions. Alternatively, we can follow empiricist Hume and say that our presuppositions are not grounded and as such, we cannot hope to find answers to these most important questions. Lastly, we can agree with Kant that their is nothing that supports our presuppositions but say, “Who cares, there is no other way to live.”
Those who are philosophers that can explain the above better and deeper, AND in plain English (!), are encouraged to chime in and correct me. For the purposes of this class, the above was good enough as it provided nothing more than a lead in to the natures of science and religion. And I most certainly qualified it as being introductory and over-simplified. As the science and religion discussion becomes more predominant at my school and this course expands into one that is more in-depth and spans a full-semester (and additional courses are created), I will certainly look to bring in a philosopher and theologian to make the discussion fuller. But we’re not there yet.
One of the questions I posed to the students was whether there was any basis for the presuppositions they had regarding philosophical questions. And also if they could live without having at least some presuppositions. This was discussed rather briefly as the point of the intro lecture, in my mind, was to get them out of “memorizing facts” mode and into “asking questions with many or perhaps no answers” mode. Mission accomplished.
That being said, I want to dig deeper in this area. What basis do I have for my presuppositions? How could I convince someone else we weren’t living in the Matrix? Is it possible to formally prove this? Most of us scientist don’t spend much time philosophizing like this, so my bookshelf is bare in this area. So I appeal to you, the reader. Where should I, a scientist with an interest in theology, look (other than the book linked to above)? Am I going to be happy with the outcome?
I’ve read a couple of your blogs, and I don’t understand the meaning of your blog title of scienceandtheology. I’ve figured that you are an active scientist from what I have read. I’ve figured that you are interested in religion. What I don’t understand is if you are a theist of some sort (either main-stream or not), or not. I’ve figured that you are interested in religion and not much beyond that. I can’t figure out if you are interested in bringing a bridge between the divide or not.
LikeLike
Once you ask can I prove I’m not in the Matrix you essentially fall into Descartes skeptical circle, and thus must play Descartes thought game. Why start from the negative premise that this world is false or ought to be questioned? St. Thomas Aquinas’ views (which are to long and thorough to explain here) seems like an appropriate response all three of those Modern Epistemologies. If you want to get more familiarized with philosophy do so with Aquinas, he fits very well with a scientists view point I might add.
LikeLike
Gondoliere,
I’m a Christian whi is interested in the discussion. When a bridge can be devised, I’m all for it. This blog is relatively new though and I have tended towards posts of a more scientific bent so far.
Ben,
Thanks. Will look for an abridged work of some sort.
LikeLike
Justin,
I’m a grad student in philosophy right now, and also a Christian interested in faith science issues. Here are some resources I’d recommend.
I should preface the list (which is in approximate order of helpfulness) by noting that the area of philosophy you’re likely to be most interested in is not straight epistemology (which is the subject in which most discussions of Descartes and the Matrix surface), but philosophy of science.
Science and Grace: God’s Reign in the Natural Sciences
[This book has an overview of the history of science-philosophy-theology relations, and does some Reformed-tradition work on the subject.]
Science & Its Limits: The Natural Sciences in Christian Perspective
[I haven’t read this yet, but the author is very good, and this is his textbook in philosophy of science]
The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side Is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate
[By the same author, the section on the history of philosophy of science is worth the price of the book by itself. The rest of the book, also good, is focused on creation/evolution issues.]
Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives
[This is by a historian, and focuses less on the philosophical issues than on the historical development, with a focus on beating persistent myths]
Here is a book on exegesis and theology I’ve found helpful.
The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate
[Again, mainly about evolution, but very good at what it does]
As far as questions about presuppositions, and whether you’ll like the answers you get: I don’t know about the latter, depends on you! But most contemporary epistemologists think we can have evidence for things (or, have justified presuppositions, or rational starting points, etc.) without being perfectly sure about them as Descartes seemed think was necessary. And we can reason from those starting points and be rationally justified in doing so without having the sorts of justifications for our reasoning that would satisfy Hume.
I hope that helps.
Matthew Baddorf
LikeLike
Matthew,
Thanks for stopping by. I got to my office the day following the class and immediately reached for my Del Ratzsch book, Philosophy of Science, which I remembered loving but the details were fuzzy. You’re right, Del is great.
LikeLike