In recent years, some Americans have come to view science and religion as consistent antagonists, butting heads over everything from the origin of the cosmos to when human life begins (abortion) and when it ends (euthanasia).
Conservative denominations, like the Southern Baptists, Catholics, Assemblies of God and some non-denominational evangelicals, object to particular areas of scientific research ”” embryonic stem cells and cloning, for instance. By contrast, mainline Protestant and Jewish denominations, as well as Hindu and Muslim communities, have tended to support embryonic stem cell research, adding a new voice to such highly politicized debates.
What is sometimes obscured by the clamor is that there was once an era in American history when science and religion were considered symbiotic allies, rather than the rancorous adversaries they too often are today.
When a moral/religious argument is made against embryonic stem cell research or abortion there is no “clash between religion and science”. There well may be a clash between competing moral/religious viewpoints, but science has nothing to say about the morality of embryonic stem cell research or abortion. It’s disappointing that a writer of Pinsky’s status seems unable to make such an elementary distinction.
Yes – the argument about stem cell research is an ethical/philosophical one.
It is indeed an ethical/philosophical argument, and I am disappointed (though not surprised) that Collins has apparently bought the pseudo-scientific argument in favor of embryonic stem cell research. On a brighter note, we have a tacit admission by the state of California fund for stem cell research, which was created to compensate for the Bush restrictions on federal funding of research on embryonic stem cells. California recently awarded the majority of its grants to research on adult stem cells, because adult stem cells have shown much more scientific promise.
Other scientific news over the past few years has called into question the need for any embryonic stem cell research, much less federally funded research. The so-called scientific case for research which destroys human embryos is really a philosophical preference.
Of course adult stem cells are more promising (except for genetic illnesses). If you can grow new tissues from the patients own stem cells, you avoid ALL tissue rejection issues.
A problem the embryonic stem cell advocates ignore.
The article swerves into a much deeper problem. There are significant segments of the religious world who define God largely in terms of what is not known. As science discovers more and more, they sense the world is trying to diminish God, and react accordingly.
There is, however, ample reason to see God in terms of what we already know — Romans 1:20, amongst others — and new discoveries can thence expand our understanding of the Creator.
My core belief on the matter is this — and my first two degrees were in the hard sciences — Science is the search for Truth, and God is the ultimate Truth. Therefore good science and good theology will reinforce each other, not undermine each other.
Where we get into bad trouble in America is with the “young-Earth” creationists, terribly confused and even more mistaken. Six 24-hour days for creation is miserable exegesis and an atrocious excuse for science. The entire debate has been distorted by the vociferous (and depressingly common) advocates of a strict six-24-hour days creation.
I’ve worked in geological age dating labs, and at one point had the oldest known rock — 3,950 million years — in the world sitting on my desk as a paper-weight. When the wooden-literalists of young-Earth creation insist that in could not possibly have been that old because our “supposed” radioactive decay constants are not, well, constant, but were changed by the Noachian flood … I don’t know whether to laugh or cry or scream with frustration.
Those folks have done far more damage to Christianity than most of us realise.
The serious and intellectually honest creationists, including some 6-day ones, have only encouraged my faith, even when they have been forced by their own research to retract some of their hypotheses. They are going where, in our culture, angels fear to tread, by challenging philosophical materialism. Instead of trying to understand the Bible in terms of the claims of modern science, they have dared to examine modern science in terms of the claims of the Bible. Even if they ultimately fail, it will have been worth the effort, in my opinion. Will the scandal aroused by creationism drive too many people away from the faith, as Bart indicated? I think there is a reasonable hope that will not be the case.
#5 – it’s at least a 1600 year old problem. St. Augustine wrote a tract railing against Christians who misinterpreted Scripture due to over-literalism and brought the Faith into discredit when it came to the natural sciences.
[blockquote]With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.[/blockquote]
I like that – “mode of divine eloquence.”
Bart, I would slightly alter your definition of “Science is the search for Truth.” Modern science is the search for the truths of nature that can be elucidated by the scientific method. In fact, the scientific method can’t confirm the truth of the previous sentence. There are plenty of truths about which modern science knows nothing.
I think it’s Pinsky, more than the “young earthers”, who confuse the relationship between science and religion. The “young earthers” may be wrong on their science, but they know they have to scientifically prove their hypothesis. Pinsky seems to think that the Catholic Church is in an adversarial relationship with science because the Church teaches that it is immoral to destroy a human embryo even if a good may result from it.
I should have said stature rather than status in #1.
#6 – I don’t think that’s what they’re trying to do at all. The argument against philosophical materialism looks different from “Young Earth Creationism.” That is exactly what it appears to be – nonsense that results from a flawed understanding of Scripture and the Faith. It’s not enough to be opposed to the atheist materialists, you must do so effectively. Bad advocates do a cause as much harm as bitter opponents.
TridentineV is right on target in my view. Here is a longer quote from St. Augustine. It has a stunningly prescient application to the Creationism debate.
Phil (#1) is entirely correct. His entire post was spot on.
Incidentally I share his amazement that a writer of Pinsky’s credentials should be unable to make this elementary distinction — one that a freshman learns about in Philosophy 101. (The Fact-Value Distinction.) That is, it is completely impossible to validly infer an OUGHT statement solely from some collection of facts about the physical world.
9 and 10: Obviously, Augustine’s comments apply so some Christians, but I have not found the writings of the serious creationists to be “flippant, rash, and obviously erroneous.” That is what their enemies, who are motivated by philosophical agendas, say falsely about them.