Advertisement

Science & Education

, Volume 18, Issue 6–7, pp 797–812 | Cite as

Whose Science and Whose Religion? Reflections on the Relations between Scientific and Religious Worldviews

  • Stuart Glennan
Article

Abstract

Arguments about the relationship between science and religion often proceed by identifying a set of essential characteristics of scientific and religious worldviews and arguing on the basis of these characteristics for claims about a relationship of conflict or compatibility between them. Such a strategy is doomed to failure because science, to some extent, and religion, to a much larger extent, are cultural phenomena that are too diverse in their expressions to be characterized in terms of a unified worldview. In this paper I follow a different strategy. Having offered a loose characterization of the nature of science, I pose five questions about specific areas where religious and scientific worldviews may conflict—questions about the nature of faith, the belief in a God or Gods, the authority of sacred texts, the relationship between scientific and religious conceptions of the mind/soul, and the relationship between scientific and religious understandings of moral behavior. My review of these questions will show that they cannot be answered unequivocally because there is no agreement amongst religious believers as to the meaning of important religious concepts. Thus, whether scientific and religious worldviews conflict depends essentially upon whose science and whose religion one is considering. In closing, I consider the implications of this conundrum for science education.

Keywords

Worldviews Nature of science Religion Faith Theism Science education 

References

  1. Ayer AJ (1952) Language, truth and logic. Dover, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Barbour IG (1997) Religion and science: historical and contemporary issues, revised edition. Harper Collins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Clifford WK (2001) The ethics of belief. In: Burger AJ (ed) The ethics of belief. Dry Bones Press, Roseville, CAGoogle Scholar
  4. Dawkins R (2006) The God delusion. Houghton Mifflin, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Dennett D (2006) Breaking the spell: religion as natural phenomenon. Viking, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Freud S (1967) Moses and monotheism. Vintage Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Freud S (1965) New introductory lectures on psychoanalysis. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Gauch H (2007) Science, worldviews and education. Sci & Edu (this issue) doi:10.1007/s11191-006-9059-1Google Scholar
  9. Gopnik A, Meltzoff AN, Kuhl PK (1999) The scientist in the crib: minds, brains, and how children learn. William Morrow & Co., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Gould SJ (1997) Nonoverlapping magisteria. Natural History 106(2):16–25Google Scholar
  11. Hume D (1777) Enquiries concerning human understanding and concerning the principles of morals, third edition with text revised and notes by P.H. Nidditch, Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Jackson F (1982) Ephiphenomenal qualia. Philosophical Quarterly 32:127–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. John Paul II (pope): 1996, 1996-last update, Message to the pontifical academy of sciences: on evolution: magisterium is concerned with question of evolution for it involves conception of man. Message delivered to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 22 October 1996 [Homepage of Eternal Word Television Network], [Online]. Available: http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM [Access Date: 2007, 2/21]
  14. Kitcher P (2006) Four ways of “biologicizing” ethics. In: Sober E (ed) Conceptual issues in evolutionary biology, 3rd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 575–586Google Scholar
  15. Lacy H (1996) On relations between science and religion. Science & Education 5(2):125–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mahner M, Bunge M (1996) Is religious education compatible with science education? Science & Education 5(2):101–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mahner M, Bunge M (1996) The incompatibility of science and religion sustained: a reply to our critics. Science & Education 5(2):189–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McCauley R (2000) The naturalness of religion and the unnaturalness of science. In: Keil F, Wilson R (eds) Explanation and cognition. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 61–85Google Scholar
  19. Nagel T (1974) What is it like to be a bat? Philosophical Review 83:435–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pius XII (pope) (1999) 1999-last update, Humani Generus: (Concerning some false opinions threatening to undermine the foundations of Catholic doctrine). Encyclical promulgated on 12 August 1950 [Homepage of Eternal Word Television Network], [Online]. Available: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P12HUMAN.HTM [Access Date: 2007, 2/19]
  21. Polkinghorne J (1986) One world: the interaction of science and theology. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  22. Ruse ME, Wilson EO (1986) Moral philosophy as applied science. Philosophy: The Journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy 61:173–192Google Scholar
  23. Settle T (1996) Applying scientific open mindedness to religion and science education. Science & Education 5(2):125–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tillich P (1957) Dynamics of faith. Perennial Classics, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Wilson EO (1998) Consilience: the unity of knowledge. Vintage Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy & ReligionButler UniversityIndianapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations