Science & Education

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 49–67 | Cite as

When Science Studies Religion: Six Philosophy Lessons for Science Classes

Article

Abstract

It is an unfortunate fact of academic life that there is a sharp divide between science and philosophy, with scientists often being openly dismissive of philosophy, and philosophers being equally contemptuous of the naiveté of scientists when it comes to the philosophical underpinnings of their own discipline. In this paper I explore the possibility of reducing the distance between the two sides by introducing science students to some interesting philosophical aspects of research in evolutionary biology, using biological theories of the origin of religion as an example. I show that philosophy is both a discipline in its own right as well as one that has interesting implications for the understanding and practice of science. While the goal is certainly not to turn science students into philosophers, the idea is that both disciplines cannot but benefit from a mutual dialogue that starts as soon as possible, in the classroom.

References

  1. Aoki, K. (1986). A stochastic model of gene-culture coevolution suggested by the “culture historical hypothesis” for the evolution of adult lactose absorption in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 83, 2929–2933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ariew, A. (2003). Ernst Mayr’s ‘ultimate/proximate’ distinction reconsidered and reconstructed. Biology and Philosophy, 18, 553–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aristotle. (1998). The metaphysics. Translated by Hugh Lawson-Tancred. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  4. Berger, J. O., & Sellke, T. (1987). Testing a point null hypothesis: The irreconcilability of p values and evidence. Journal of American Statistical Association, 82, 112–122.Google Scholar
  5. Blackmore, S. J. (2000). The meme machine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Blanke, O., Ortigue, S., Landis, T., & Seeck, M. (2002). Stimulating illusory own-body perceptions. Nature, 419, 269–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boyer, P. (2008). Religion: Bound to believe? Nature, 455, 1038–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brigandt, I., & Love, A. (2008). Reductionism in biology. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/reduction-biology/.
  9. Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Chamberlin, T. C. (1890). The method of multiple working hypotheses. Science, 15, 92–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cleland, C. E. (2001). Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method. Geology, 29, 987–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cleland, C. E. (2002). Methodological and epistemic differences between historical science and experimental science. Philosophy of Science, 69, 474–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cleland, C. E. (2011). Prediction and explanation in historical natural science. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, advanced online publication, 25 February 2011.Google Scholar
  14. Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 49, 997–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Corfield, D., & Williamson, J. (2001). Foundations of Bayesianism. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection: Or, the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  17. Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Dawkins, R. (2006). The God delusion. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
  19. De Pierris, G., & Friedman, M. (2008). Kant and Hume on causality. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/kant-hume-causality/.
  20. Dennett, D. (1996). Darwins dangerous idea: Evolution and the meanings of life. New York: Simon and Schuster, p. 21.Google Scholar
  21. Depew, D. (2008). Consequence etiology and biological teleology in Aristotle and darwin. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part C, 39, 379–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Feldman, M. W., & Laland, K. N. (1996). Gene-culture coevolutionary theory. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 11, 453–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Flack, J. C., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2000). Any animal whatever: Darwinian building blocks of morality in monkeys and apes. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 7, 1–29.Google Scholar
  24. Gazzaniga, M. S. (2003). The split brain revisited. Scientific American, 287, 26–31.Google Scholar
  25. Gould, S. J., & Lewontin, R. C. (1979). The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B205, 581–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gould, S. J., & Vrba, E. S. (1982). Exaptation—a missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology, 8, 4–15.Google Scholar
  27. Hone, W. D. E., Keesey, T. M., Pisani, D., & Purvis, A. (2005). Macroevolutionary trends in the Dinosauria: Cope’s rule. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 18, 587–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hume, D. (1748/1952). An enquiry concerning human understanding. Forgotten Books.Google Scholar
  29. Huxley, J. S. (1942/2010). Evolution: The modern synthesis. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Kant, I. (1783/2004). Prolegomena to any future metaphysics that will be able to come forward as science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Kaplan, J. H. (2002). Historical evidence and human adaptation. Philosophy of Science, 69, S294–S304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kaplan, J. M., & Pigliucci, M. (2001). Genes ‘for’ phenotypes: A modern history view. Biology and Philosophy, 16, 189–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ladyman, J. (2002). Understanding philosophy of science. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Lakatos, I. (1978). The methodology of scientific research programmes: Philosophical papers (Vol 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Manson, J. H., Perry, S., & Parish, A. R. (1997). Nonconceptive sexual behavior in bonobos and Capuchins. International Journal of Primatology, 18, 767–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mayr, E. (1961). Cause and effect in biology. Science, 134, 1501–1506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Newberg, A., D’Aquili, E., & Rause, V. (2002). Why God wont go away: Brain science and the biology of belief. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  38. Nix, T. W. & Barnette, J. J. (1998). The data analysis dilemma: Ban or abandon. A review of null hypothesis significance testing. Research in the Schools, 5, 3–14.Google Scholar
  39. Norenzayan, A., & Shariff, A. F. (2008). The origin and evolution of religious prosociality. Science, 322, 58–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. O’Connor, T., & Wong, H. Y. (2009). Emergent properties. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/properties-emergent/.
  41. Okasha, S. (2006). Evolution and the levels of selection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Pigliucci, M. (2002). Denying evolution: Creationism, scientism, and the nature of science. Sunderland: Sinauer.Google Scholar
  43. Pigliucci, M. (2003). From molecules to phenotypes?-The promise and limits of integrative biology. Basic and Applied Ecology, 4, 297–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pigliucci, M., & Kaplan, J. (2000). The fall and rise of Dr. Pangloss: Adaptationism and the Spandrels paper 20 years later. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 15, 55–70.Google Scholar
  45. Pigliucci, M., & Kaplan, J. (2006). Making sense of evolution: The conceptual foundations of evolutionary biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  46. Price, G. R. (1970). Selection and covariance. Nature, 227, 520–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pyysiainen, I., & Hauser, M. (2009). The origins of religion: Evolved adaptation or by-product? Trends in Cognitive Science, 14, 104–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Richerson, P. J., & Newson, L. (2009). Is religion adaptive? Yes, no, neutral, but mostly we don’t know. In M. J. Murray & J. Schloss (Eds.), The believing primate: Scientific, philosophical and theological perspectives on the evolution of religion (pp. 100–117). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Rizzolatti, G. (2005). The mirror neuron system and its function in humans. Brain Structure & Function, 210, 419–421.Google Scholar
  50. Schloss, J. (2009). Evolutionary theories of religion. Science unfettered or naturalism run wild? In M. J. Murray & J. Schloss (Eds.), The believing primate: Scientific, philosophical and theological perspectives on the evolution of religion (pp. 1–25). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Snow, C. P. (1993). The two cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Sober, E., & Wilson, D. S. (1999). Unto others: The evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Weinberg, S. (1994). Against philosophy (pp. 166–190). In dreams of a final theory. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  54. Williams, G. C. (1966). Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Williams, G. C. (1992). Natural selection: Domains, levels, and challenges. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Wilson, E. O. (1999). Consilience: The unity of knowledge. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  57. Wilson, D. S. (2002). Darwin’s Cathedral: Evolution, religion, and the nature of society. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.Google Scholar
  58. Wilson, D. S. (2007). Evolutionary religious studies (ERS): A Beginners guide. http://evolution.binghamton.edu/religion/resources/guide/.
  59. Worrall, J. (1989). Structural realism: The best of both worlds? Dialectica, 43, 99–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Graduate CenterCity University of New YorkNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations