How do science and christianity conflict?
Part of the answer to this quite complex
question may be derived from the current brouhaha over
evolution.
Despite quite a bit of effort which I have
lately put into trying to understand the fundamentalist frame of mind (in
particular, the Christian fundamentalist one), I can't say that I have much
confidence in my success. But it does seem that they have a bone to pick with
some aspects of the contemporary scientific world view. And this does seem to
have something to do with their tendency to object to what scientists are
telling us about the place of our species in the
world.
Karen Armstrong argues that the fundamentalists' style of "literal" interpretation of their holy scriptures is really a modern innovation; in the old days, neither Jews, Christians nor Muslims read their scriptures as being "literally true in every detail."
Now, it may be true that Genesis was not understood in the pre-scientific era in this fundamentalist way. Creation myths of all societies are quite difficult to take "literally." In Genesis, the various features of the world appear when God says "let there be X" and lo, there is X. Homo sapiens appeared when God took a lump of clay and breathed life into it. And female Homo sapiens appeared (at least according to one story in that book) as a result of a rib amputation of the first male H. sapiens. Rather hard to take these stories "literally," unless you are a fundamentalist. And who knows but them what they mean by that?
But when modern science developed, it did provide, for the first time, an alternative account of how things happened in the midst of late medieval European culture. And Christianity had to react to this one way or another. Christian historians tend to write as though all the subsequent changes in Christian doctrine were endogenous -- the effect of science seems to be downplayed quite a bit in many of their accounts. But Christianity could not avoid having to adapt to the new cultural kid on the block, nevertheless. (Perhaps the most notable figure in this adaptation is one who is seldom studied these days except by professional historians of philosophy: Kant.)
Some Christians adapted by taking science on board. Eventually, for example, the Catholic Church accepted modern cosmology and biology, and even nurtured notable scientists who have contributed greatly to these fields. And others adapted by shutting themselves off from such scientific knowledge and picking which parts of the bible they would "take literally" (even fundamentalists draw the line at some things).
The point is that, as Armstrong says in the Guardian article cited above, "mythology [is] no longer regarded as a valid path to knowledge" -- except by the fundamentalists. And as much as Armstrong and others may regret it, I don't think it can be restored to this status. Mythology's days as "valid knowledge" seem to be over.
Of course, there are lacunae in the story scientists tell -- any scientist will readily admit that she or he and her or his colleagues don't know everything. Some of these "gaps" (into which anyone may insert a "god of the gaps" if one is so moved) seem rather important to many lay people, such as "what touched off the Big Bang?" and "where did life originally come from?" All that scientists can say is, "We're working on that, and we may never know because we may never get the necessary evidence." If you are upset about not knowing such things, perhaps you can feel better by plugging Genesis, or whatever you like, into the crevices. But feeling that you know is not the same thing as actually knowing. Most of us, these days, just can't convince us that "let there be light" or "breathing life into clay" or "taking a rib from Adam's side" is any kind of knowledge.
Science by no means abolished religion -- we can see evidence of that all around us. But it did profoundly modify religion -- even for the fundamentalists in all religions who stoutly reject what they consider "sinful science."
(This post was based on a comment I made to this post on Body and Soul.)
Karen Armstrong argues that the fundamentalists' style of "literal" interpretation of their holy scriptures is really a modern innovation; in the old days, neither Jews, Christians nor Muslims read their scriptures as being "literally true in every detail."
Now, it may be true that Genesis was not understood in the pre-scientific era in this fundamentalist way. Creation myths of all societies are quite difficult to take "literally." In Genesis, the various features of the world appear when God says "let there be X" and lo, there is X. Homo sapiens appeared when God took a lump of clay and breathed life into it. And female Homo sapiens appeared (at least according to one story in that book) as a result of a rib amputation of the first male H. sapiens. Rather hard to take these stories "literally," unless you are a fundamentalist. And who knows but them what they mean by that?
But when modern science developed, it did provide, for the first time, an alternative account of how things happened in the midst of late medieval European culture. And Christianity had to react to this one way or another. Christian historians tend to write as though all the subsequent changes in Christian doctrine were endogenous -- the effect of science seems to be downplayed quite a bit in many of their accounts. But Christianity could not avoid having to adapt to the new cultural kid on the block, nevertheless. (Perhaps the most notable figure in this adaptation is one who is seldom studied these days except by professional historians of philosophy: Kant.)
Some Christians adapted by taking science on board. Eventually, for example, the Catholic Church accepted modern cosmology and biology, and even nurtured notable scientists who have contributed greatly to these fields. And others adapted by shutting themselves off from such scientific knowledge and picking which parts of the bible they would "take literally" (even fundamentalists draw the line at some things).
The point is that, as Armstrong says in the Guardian article cited above, "mythology [is] no longer regarded as a valid path to knowledge" -- except by the fundamentalists. And as much as Armstrong and others may regret it, I don't think it can be restored to this status. Mythology's days as "valid knowledge" seem to be over.
Of course, there are lacunae in the story scientists tell -- any scientist will readily admit that she or he and her or his colleagues don't know everything. Some of these "gaps" (into which anyone may insert a "god of the gaps" if one is so moved) seem rather important to many lay people, such as "what touched off the Big Bang?" and "where did life originally come from?" All that scientists can say is, "We're working on that, and we may never know because we may never get the necessary evidence." If you are upset about not knowing such things, perhaps you can feel better by plugging Genesis, or whatever you like, into the crevices. But feeling that you know is not the same thing as actually knowing. Most of us, these days, just can't convince us that "let there be light" or "breathing life into clay" or "taking a rib from Adam's side" is any kind of knowledge.
Science by no means abolished religion -- we can see evidence of that all around us. But it did profoundly modify religion -- even for the fundamentalists in all religions who stoutly reject what they consider "sinful science."
(This post was based on a comment I made to this post on Body and Soul.)
Posted: Sun - August 14, 2005 at 12:44 PM | |
Quick Links
SITE UNDER CONSTRUCTION!
(while I bone up on html and css)
(while I bone up on html and css)
Categories
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Comments powered by
Archives
Truth Laid Bear
Technorati
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Dec 09, 2005 10:19 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Dec 09, 2005 10:19 PM
