Advertisement

‘About’ and ‘Of’ Languages: A New Way of Framing Religion and Science

  • Ben Trubody
Chapter
Part of the Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education book series (CTISE, volume 48)

Abstract

Borrowing from the philosophy of Kierkegaard, one way of understanding the apparent conflict between science and religion is to frame each as a discourse in terms of ‘about’ and ‘of’ languages that appeal to objective-explicit and subjective-tacit aspects of experience. About languages are discourses that are about something else, where science is nominally about nature, empirical events and objective descriptions, whereas religions are about doctrines, rituals, liturgies, institutional structures and so on. About languages are those things that can be stated propositionally, explicitly and objectively. In contrast, of languages refers to lived practices that are socio-historical. It is not just the doing of those practices but also the background conditions that contextualise them. This language is experienced tacitly and subjectively. Whilst we might be able to work from definitions by explicitly-objectively stating what science and religion are about, the tacit-subjective element eludes such reduction. Christianity, for example, may be about Jesus, Love and the Gospels, but we might be unsatisfied in saying that is all that Christianity is. Equally, we might be unsatisfied in claiming science is only about experimental verification, consensus building or falsification when history offers scientific counterexamples that fail to meet our definition. I argue that this unsatisfactory result is due to a metaphysical conflation of two discourses, which then create their own pseudo-problems, such as proving the existence of God as a route to the ‘Truth’ of religion or supplying a scientific basis for being ethical as a way of ‘disproving’ the religious experience.

References

  1. Alper, M. (2008). The god part of the brain: A scientific interpretation of human spirituality and god. Naperville: Sourcebooks.Google Scholar
  2. Answers Research Journal: Building the Creation Model (2017). http://answersingenesis.org/answers/research-journal/. Accessed 12 Jan 2017.
  3. Armstrong, K. (2005). A short history of myth. Edinburgh: Canongate.Google Scholar
  4. Barbour, I. G. (2000). When science meets religion: Enemies, strangers, or partners. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  5. Chalmers, A. F. (2010). What is this thing called science ? Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Collins, H. (2010). Tacit and explicit knowledge. Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crick, F. (1994). The astonishing hypothesis: The scientific search for the soul. London: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  8. Dirac, P. (1939). The relation between mathematics and physics. Proceedings of the Royal Society, 59(1938–1939), 122–129.Google Scholar
  9. Dreyfus, H. (1979). What computers can’t do. New York: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Feyerabend, P. (1993). Against method (3rd ed.). London: Verso.Google Scholar
  11. Feynman, R. (2001). What is science? In J. Robbins (Ed.), The pleasure of finding things out: The best short works of Richard P. Feynman (pp. 171–188). London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  12. Gordon, R. L. (2008). An introduction to Africana philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  14. Harding, S. (1987). Feminism and methodology: Social science issues. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Harris, S. (2010). The moral landscape: How science can determine human values. London: Bantam Press.Google Scholar
  16. Katz, E. C. (2001). The voice of god and the face of the other. The Journal of Textual Reasoning 2 (1). http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/journals/tr/volume2/number1/katz.html. Accessed 22 Sept 2016.
  17. Katz, Y. (2012, November 1). Noam Chomsky on where artificial intelligence went wrong. The Atlantic. http://theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/11/noam-chomsky-on-where-artificalintelligence-went-wrong/261637/?single_page=true>. Accessed 19 Aug 2016.
  18. Kierkegaard, S. (1941). Concluding unscientific postscript (Swenson, D. F. & Lowrie, W., Trans.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kierkegaard, S. (2006). Fear and trembling (S. Walsh, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kuhn, T. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Plantinga, A. (1983). Reason and belief in god. In A. Plantinga & N. Wolterstorff (Eds.), Faith and rationality: Reason and belief in god (pp. 16–94). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  22. Polkinghorne, J. (1988). Science and creation: The search for understanding. London: SPCK.Google Scholar
  23. Putnam, H. (2004). The collapse of the fact/value dichotomy and other essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Sartre, J. (1984). Being and nothingness (Barnes, H. E., Trans.). New York: Washington Square Press.Google Scholar
  25. Schönbaumsfeld, G. (2007). A confusion of the spheres: Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein on philosophy and religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Smart, N. (1968). Secular education and the logic of religion. New York: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
  27. Tallis, R. (2012). Aping mankind: Neuromania, dawinitis, and the misrepresentation of humanity. Durham: Acumen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tipler, F. J. (2007). The physics of christianity. London/New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  29. Voegelin, E. (1948). The origins of scientism. Social Research, 15(4), 462–494.Google Scholar
  30. Weinberg, S. (2001). Peace at last? In J. Labinger & H. Collins (Eds.), The one culture? A conversation about science (pp. 238–242). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wittgenstein, L. (2001). Tractatus logico-philosophicus (Pears, D. F., & McGuinness, B. F., Trans.). London: Routledge Classics.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ben Trubody
    • 1
  1. 1.Independent ResearcherCheltenhamUK

Personalised recommendations