|
|
22-28 Jul
Q: Who said, "Science can only ascertain what is, not what should be?"
"Science & Religion at the Millennium: The Range of Engagement"
Professor James E. Huchingson
ABSTRACT
Science and religion are popularly known for their tempestuous relationship. But this simplistic and distorted characterization misses the complex ways in which these two major authorities actually interact. This range of engagement includes conflict as well as claims of mutual independence and efforts at dialogue. However they choose to interact, the question of Divine action in the world is crucial for both parties. Science adamantly opposes interference in the orderly patterns of nature, and yet with equal conviction theology insists on G-d's providential involvement in the Creation. How is the discussion of science with religion offering constructive insights into this divisive issue? The answers reveal insights into both the progress and the frustrations involved in the contemporary engagement.
A: There are several versions of independence. We will mention two. One is to claim that science asks "how" questions. Religion asks "why" questions. This was a position taken by Einstein in his statement, "Science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be." John Polkinghorne, another physicist-turned-theologian, illustrates this distinction nicely with a pithy domestic parable:
A kettle of water is boiling on the stove. Why? Science would reply that heat applied to the water in the kettle excites the molecules until they reach a point at 100 degrees centigrade where a phase transition occurs and the water boils. This account nicely explains the process, the "how" of boiling water, but it says absolutely nothing about the "why" of the kettle. That can come only by examining the intention of the person who put it on the stove in the first place. Why is the kettle of water boiling? "Because I would like a cup of tea."
The second way of illustrating the independence position is to talk in terms of two languages. Science employs observer language; religion uses participant language. While science seeks objectivity in its pursuit of truth, religion requires personal involvement. Imagine the following scene: A surgeon stands by the bed of a gravely ill patient shortly before she is scheduled for surgery. His approach is one of detachment. He pores over the patient's charts-her blood tests, vital signs, CAT scans-to take every measure of her physical status. His professional attitude must be that of an objective observer with advanced scientific training and technical skills. His primary language is based on fact and quantification. The patient, however, views the impending surgery from an entirely different perspective. In her personal diary she records her hopes, anxieties, and concerns. How will her family cope if the surgery is not successful? How should she face the real possibility of her own death? In one passage she expresses her perplexity about her condition and tries to make larger sense of her pain and anguish by asking the question, "Why must I suffer so?" Her question is not an appeal for a medical diagnosis, but rather a deeply human cry for justice. Her vocabulary is far from objective; it is profoundly existential, the vocabulary of one who is involved with questions of her own mortality. His charts and her journal: two records so different that no new Rosetta stone could provide a common translation. They document two incommensurable perspectives, the observer and the participant, and reflect the independent domains of science and religion.
Professor James E. Huchingson, "Science & Religion at the Millennium: The Range of Engagement" in B'OR HA'TORAH 12E pp144-145
CLICK HERE TO ORDER
BIO
James E. Huchingson is associate professor of religious studies in the Department of Religious Studies of Florida International University in Miami, Florida. He began his career in aerospace engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology and eventually worked for the Boeing Company at Cape Canaveral and at NASA Headquarters in Washington, DC. Before entering the doctoral program in religious studies at Emory University in Atlanta, he pursued graduate studies on an NDEA Fellowship in the History of Science and Technology at the Case Institute of Technology in Cleveland. After completing his PhD at Emory, he came to his present position at Florida International University with the responsibility of designing the initial program in religious studies. He eventually served two terms as chair of the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies.
Professor Huchingson has worked in the field of science and religion for thirty years. For fifteen years he served on the editorial board of Zygon, The Journal of Religion and Science. He is the author of a widely used text in the field, Religion and the Natural Sciences: The Range of Engagement (Harcourt Brace, 1993). He has received numerous state and national awards for his teaching and course design.
huchings@fiu.edu
CLICK HERE TO ORDER
B’OR HA’TORAH is Published by SHAMIR
Professor Herman Branover, Editor-in-Chief
Address all correspondence for B'Or
HaTorah to Ilana Attia
6 David Yellin Street , POB
5749, Jerusalem, Israel
Tel. 972-2-642-7521* Fax 972-2-538-5118
info@borhatorah.org
Site housed by
Shema Yisrael Torah Network
|
