Sunday, January 31, 2010

Relation of Science to Religion, Part 1 of 3

My next several posts will be extended excerpts from the concluding chapter of Charles Hodge's What Is Darwinism? published in 1874.

Relation of Darwinism to Religion

The consideration of that subject would lead into the wide field of the relation between science and religion. Into that field we lack competency and time to enter; a few remarks, however, on the subject may not be out of place. Those remarks, we would fain make in a humble way irenical. There is need of an Irenicum, for the fact is painfully notorious that there is an antagonism between scientific men as a class, and religious men as a class. Of course this opposition is neither felt nor expressed by all on either side. Nevertheless, whatever may be the cause of this antagonism, or whoever are to be blamed for it, there can be no doubt that it exists and that it is an evil.

First Cause
The two parties...adopt different rules of evidence, and thus can hardly avoid arriving at different conclusions

The first cause of the alienation in question is, that the two parties, so to speak, adopt different rules of evidence, and thus can hardly avoid arriving at different conclusions. To understand this we must determine what is meant by science, and by scientific evidence. Science, according to its etymology, is simply knowledge. But usage has limited its meaning, in the first place, not to the knowledge of facts or phenomena, merely, but to their causes and relations. It was said of old, "ὁτι scientiæ fundamentum, διὁτι fastigium." No amount of materials would constitute a building. They must be duly arranged so as to make a symmetrical whole. No amount of disconnected data can constitute a science. Those data must be systematized in their relation to each other and to other things. In the second place, the word is becoming more and more restricted to the knowledge of a particular class of facts, and of their relations, namely, the facts of nature or of the external world. This usage is not universal, nor is it fixed. In Germany, especially, the word Wissenschaft is used of all kinds of ordered knowledge, whether transcendental or empirical. So we are accustomed to speak of mental, moral, social, as well as of natural science. Nevertheless, the more restricted use of the word is very common and very influential. It is important that this fact should be recognized. In common usage, a scientific man is distinguished specially from a metaphysician. The one investigates the phenomena of matter, the other studies the phenomena of mind, according to the old distinction between physics and metaphysics. Science, therefore, is the ordered knowledge of the phenomena which we recognize through the senses. A scientific fact is a fact perceived by the senses. Scientific evidence is evidence addressed to the senses. At one of the meetings of the Victoria Institute, a visitor avowed his disbelief in the existence of God. When asked, what kind of evidence would satisfy him? he answered, Just such evidence as I have of the existence of this tumbler which I now hold in my hand. The Rev. Mr. Henslow says, "By science is meant the investigation of facts and phenomena recognizable by the senses, and of the causes which have brought them into existence."[40] This is the main root of the trouble. If science be the knowledge of the facts perceived by the senses, and scientific evidence, evidence addressed to the senses, then the senses are the only sources of knowledge. Any conviction resting on any other ground than the testimony of the senses, must be faith. Darwin admits that the contrivances in nature may be accounted for by assuming that they are due to design on the part of God. But, he says, that would not be science. Haeckel says that to science matter is eternal. If any man chooses to say, it was created, well and good; but that is a matter of faith, and faith is imagination. Ulrici quotes a distinguished German physiologist who believes in vital, as distinguished from physical forces; but he holds to spontaneous generation, not, as he admits, because it has been proved, but because the admission of any higher power than nature is unscientific.[41]

It is inevitable that minds addicted to scientific investigation should receive a strong bias to undervalue any other kind of evidence except that of the senses, i. e., scientific evidence. We have seen that those who give themselves up to this tendency come to deny God, to deny mind, to deny even self. It is true that the great majority of men, scientific as well as others, are so much under the control of the laws of their nature, that they cannot go to this extreme. The tendency, however, of a mind addicted to the consideration of one kind of evidence, to become more or less insensible to other kinds of proof, is undeniable. Thus even Agassiz, as a zoölogist and simply on zoölogical grounds, assumed that there were several zones between the Ganges and the Atlantic Ocean, each having its own flora and fauna, and inhabited by races of men, the same in kind, but of different origins. When told by the comparative philologists that this was impossible, because the languages spoken through that wide region, demonstrated that its inhabitants must have had a common descent, he could only answer that as ducks quack everywhere, he could not see why men should not everywhere speak the same language.

A still more striking illustration is furnished by Dr. Lionel Beale, the distinguished English physiologist. He has written a book of three hundred and eighty-eight pages for the express purpose of proving that the phenomena of life, instinct, and intellect cannot be referred to any known natural forces. He avows his belief that in nature "mind governs matter," and "in the existence of a never-changing, all-seeing, power-directing and matter-guiding Omnipotence." He avows his faith in miracles, and "those miracles on which Christianity is founded." Nevertheless, his faith in all these points is provisional. He says that a truly scientific man, "if the maintenance, continuity, and nature of life on our planet should at some future time be fully explained without supposing the existence of any such supernatural omnipotent influence, would be bound to receive the new explanation, and might abandon the old conviction."[42] That is, all evidence of the truths of religion not founded on nature and perceived by the senses, amounts to nothing.

Now as religion does not rest on the testimony of the senses, that is on scientific evidence, the tendency of scientific men is to ignore its claims. We speak only of tendency. We rejoice to know or believe that in hundreds or thousands of scientific men, this tendency is counteracted by their consciousness of manhood—the conviction that the body is not the man,—by the intuitions of the reason and the conscience, and by the grace of God. No class of men stands deservedly higher in public estimation than men of science, who, while remaining faithful to their higher nature, have enlarged our knowledge of the wonderful works of God.

FOOTNOTES:

[40] Science and Scripture not Antagonistic, because Distinct in their Spheres of Thought. A Lecture, by Rev. George Henslow, M. A., F. L. S., F. G. S. London, 1873, p. 1.

[41] Gott und Natur, p. 200.

13 comments:

CRL said...

My view is that religion and science should have nothing to fear from each other. Science, if done correctly, is a reliable method of finding truth within the natural world; answering the 'what' and 'where' and 'how' questions. A true religion would have nothing to fear from these truths. Science, in turn, should have nothing to fear from religion, which administers to a different realm, answering those pesky "why" questions which plague our thoughts. It is only when religion tries to answer how and science tries to answer why that we see conflict.

Ewan said...

Very interesting, thanks for the post - you have to love Project Gutenberg.

Love the final sentance - "No class of men stands deservedly higher in public estimation than men of science, who, while remaining faithful to their higher nature, have enlarged our knowledge of the wonderful works of God."

I agree with you CRL - we waste too much time and energy blurring the lines between "why" and "how".

CyberKitten said...

crl said: Science, in turn, should have nothing to fear from religion, which administers to a different realm, answering those pesky "why" questions which plague our thoughts.

I would that thought that those 'pesky' why questions are answered (or at least attempted) by philosophy rather than religion. Religion, in my opinion, answers very little indeed, but then again such beliefs have always remained inexplicable to me.

CRL said...

CK: I don't mean to say that religion provides the answers to "why" questions, only that it attempts to.

CyberKitten said...

crl said: CK: I don't mean to say that religion provides the answers to "why" questions, only that it attempts to.

Attepts yes.... succeeds.... no.

Laughing Boy said...

The issue raised in this post is the narrowing of knowledge to scientific knowledge, and the narrowing of what is scientific to facts perceived by the five senses. "Men of science", he asserts, develop "a strong bias to undervalue any other kind of evidence" which wold include " the intuitions of the reason and the conscience".

What do you think of these claims? What can rightly be claimed as knowledge?

Laughing Boy said...

As to "why" questions, for the sake of argument, I think we should say that they are addressed by metaphysics rather than by religion. This might help remove the anti-religious bias from the fundamental issue, which is: Are "why" questions valid? If so, where does one search for answers?

CRL said...

"As to "why" questions, for the sake of argument, I think we should say that they are addressed by metaphysics rather than by religion."

Correct. What I meant there is that religion only answers "why" and has no business answering "how".

CyberKitten said...

LB said: What can rightly be claimed as knowledge?

Probably things that can be independently verified. In my world having 'private knowledge' that only you can attest to doesn't really make the grade.

Laughing Boy said...

@ CRL: ...religion only answers "why" and has no business answering "how"

No business? OK. Remember that for later. Are the "how" questions religion can't answer limited to those that rightfully belong to science, like how life originated on earth? Can religion tell us how Christ's death accomplished our redemption, or is that still one for science?

@CK: In my world having 'private knowledge' that only you can attest to doesn't really make the grade.

That seems pretty limiting. For example, do you have knowledge of what you were thinking about 5 minutes ago? Do you have knowledge of your emotional states? If a tree falls in the forest, and only you hear it, does it make a sound? Do you mean that you have no knowledge of the vast majority of the events of your own life (even if you clearly remembered every moment of your 49.83 years). Do you not know if you have you ever had a dream?

Am I understanding you correctly?

CRL said...

"Are the "how" questions religion can't answer limited to those that rightfully belong to science, like how life originated on earth?"

By "how" questions, I meant questions about how the natural world works. I should have been clearer.

"Can religion tell us how Christ's death accomplished our redemption..."

Not clearly and without equivocation.

"@CK: 'In my world having 'private knowledge' that only you can attest to doesn't really make the grade.'

That seems pretty limiting..."

There's a difference between personal rational knowledge and personal intuition. The former is considerably more reliable.

smithadri said...

CRL said:
There's a difference between personal rational knowledge and personal intuition. The former is considerably more reliable.

What exactly would be the difference? For example, I remember having breakfast - on what basis? I remember falling in love? on what basis?

CRL said...

If I remember eating breakfast, I have evidence with which to back my memories up: dirty dishes, less food in the fridge, a physiological feeling of fullness.

If I remember falling in love, I cannot, empirically, back this up, as emotion does not readily lend itself to empirical recording, however the fact that my memories are accurate on such matters of breakfast eating leads me to conclude that they will be equally accurate on matters of love. My intuition, on the other hand, is frequently inaccurate testable matters, leading me to conclude that it will be equally inaccurate on matters which are untestable.