RELIGIONS
SCIENCE
(Humanities2)
According to its ‘Introduction’, Block 4 introduces
Religious Studies and History of Science…
as illustrations of responses
to common problems in these disciplines'.
What kinds of problems do they respond to
and how do they deal with them?
Our world is shrinking due to globalisation, and it has
become more chaotic from terrorists attacks- 9/11 to
environmental issues. All these political, economical and
social changes affect us more intimately than ever. We seek
solutions to clarify doubts in the midst of these confusions,
difficulties and unexplained phenomenon in two eminent,
distinguished masters- Religion and Science. These pressing
issues along with the changing face of belief are the most
compelling reasons for us to study Religion and Science to
reconsider our understanding of the world. The
Enlightenment/Reformation movements, the breaking away from
the dogmas and authority of the catholic church and the rise
of science; rejecting creation theory in the favour of the
evolution theory culminated in the drift between religion and
science.
Due to the complex nature of both religion and science,
there exists continuously, hotly debated issues of criteria
for studying these disciplines, their definitions, boundaries,
what qualify us to study them(insiders or outsiders) and in
what form do we study them? There exists unresolved debates
of boundaries/definitions of religion and science. For Barker
(outsider),Transcendental Meditation is considered a religious
movement, but for Denniston and McWillaims(insiders) they
claimed that Transcendental Meditation is not a religion, it
is a scientific discovery. Most new religious movements may not
involved god so where do they fit in? There have been many
attempts to define ‘Religion’, boundaries seems to overlapped
creating a fuzzy line.
Ninian Smart's seven-dimensional functional model is being
too broad that it includes secular views like Marxism but does
Marxism qualify to be called a religion? Steve Bruce narrow
substantive definition is a better alternative:'Religion….
consists of beliefs, actions, and institutions which assume
the existence of supernatural entities with powers of actions,
or impersonal powers or processes possessed of moral purpose’
(Block 4,p.37).Steve Bruce definition is comprehensive, concise
and specific. It includes NRMs yet exclude secular views like
Marxism and at the same time accommodates Buddhism that has
no focus on god. Ninain smart functional definition model’s
(Practical & ritual, Experiential & emotional, Narrative &
mystic, Doctrinal & philosophical, Ethical & legal, social
& Institutional & material) is highly ineffective as it
creates a fuzzy boundary in its definition. However, it works
well as a model guide in deciding the form of studies or
activities in religious studies.
The boundary of science imposes restrictions on research
grants to medicine research like Traditional Chinese Medicine
that has not been proven safe to the extent of western safety
versus risk. No research grants was allowed to study human
cloning because it hits on morality and supernatural practices
are being frowned upon, an area science fear to tread.
Boundaries are subjected to social concerns like risk taking,
cultural concern like morality or economical benefits and these
do hinder the progress of science.
What qualify us to study Religion and Science is a thorny
disputed argument. Do we have to be religious to study
religion or to be a trained scientist to study science?
The insiders –the practitioners of religions and science,
have three distinct temperaments- too emotional, too sensitive,
too defensive, and these takes away the rationality to see
things in a wider perspective. They cling on to their truth
claims, the religious- their sacred texts, the scientists
-their theories. Even among themselves they have violently
disagreed about the truths and have endlessly rancorous
disputes about it. They are not able to discern through their
myopic vision from the well of their narrow internal
perspective. It is difficult to test the existence of god or
testify its sovereignty way of life and scientists are not
able to agree among themselves.
Outsiders, on the other hand are criticized for not having
experience personal life transforming experiences or the
emotion/intellect of insidersthat insiders can testify to.
They do not have insights or authority of the experts and do
not go through painstaking, sacrificing years of research or
devotional worship. Outsiders with its academic focus are seen
to be too objective and detached failing to connect the essence
of their studies like religion with the deepest spiritual
involvement. Simply by observing rituals, festivals and
practices of a religion, they are seeing it from an abstract,
superficial point of view.
Insiders of religions seem to equate faith with fear and
obedience- the fear of some supreme beings or punishments -
literally reading the truth claims, this has restricted their
visions to understand their philosophy in a wider context. Many
religions demand ‘faith’ to seal in the gaps in doctrinal
explanations that cannot be demonstrated parallel to trust
something essentially improvable. Insiders tend to believe
religion is static and stable, but who says religions do not
evolve? That is to say God spoke to us then but why not now
through other means like science or perhaps New Religious
Movements?
In addition, insiders of Science do not want to give up
their belief/theory that are closely associated with
their personality/ego/status. It was also out of fear
that Darwin kept his evolution theory for twenty years,
Darwin was afraid to upset the church and lose his eminent
status as he was the head to the scientific domain. Religious
studies and study of history of science (outsiders) were
established in 19th century and they take a detached,
dispassionate and objective view while studying
controversies and rivalries of Science and Religion and do not
get involved with their arguments. This impartiality bring in
fresh perspective to the intensity and complexity of the
issues of insiders. They refuse to take truth claims as an
absolute without concrete evidence, and they deliver a more
flexible, kaleidoscope view and an interconnectivity of other
subjects concerning humanity to it.
Strict adherence to static rules or regulations often restricts
the insider’s rationality leading them down the dark alley of
unresolved disputes or confusion. For example, taking the
two-track approach in science- where the truth claim asserts
that if someone or something is right than the other must be
wrong. So if Darwin is right therefore Wallace must be wrong?
Another approach of science, the internalist approach,
implicitly heroic also insisted its players
being either right or wrong. Darwin was hailed as the hero
whilst Wallace as the anti-hero in their theories of evolution.
Wallace was considered wrong because he went off rails by
engaging in socialism and spiritualism, dangerously pushing
off the boundaries of science. Using the internalist approach,
Wallace was discredited as he brought in politics and
supernaturals into science again pushing the boundaries.
Science seems to have nurtured an obsession over its
hero (Darwin) and anti-hero (Wallace), at times lacking focus,
they stray from the lofty quest of the simple truth.
Only the contextual approach of the outsiders provided by
contextual history of science can be fair to someone who step
out of the boundary. Wallace's social position was given credit.
Outsiders are able to look at both the achievements of Wallace
and Darwin symmetrically and equally and award them equal
status. Wallace should not be dismissed and Darwin honoured.
Only through contextual study Wallace gets fair treatment. It is
only fair to view him in his context-his childhood, his
relationship etc…
Both religious studies and history of science seek to
understand things in context - historical, social, political
and cultural and adopt a different perspective from insiders.
Outsiders may be able to understand the insiders better as what
may first appear alien takes on new meaning when view withinits
own setting while insiders benefit from outsiders’ guided
rationality. No one including the insiders has the monopoly of
truth, there are some universal truths in all religions and not
all sciences can prove all truths; it seems each time science
unravel a riddle, new ones grows from it. Boundaries should be
flexible and evolve according to changes in society as people
find new religious and scientific expressions, who knows one day
they might emerge as one discipline? Outsiders can become
insiders and insiders can become outsiders through both
disciplines of Religion and Science. Boundaries might fade and
the odd couple Religion and Science, Insiders and Outsiders
would emerge in the common quest of truth.
(1348 words)
Bibliography
Religion & Science in context, block 4, The Open University.
An introduction to The Humanities, Resource book 3, The Open University
No comments:
Post a Comment