Science & Religion - Alister E. McGrath

Скачать книгу

Books; (6) the Two Languages (separation; independence); (7) ethical alliance; (8) dialogue leading to creative mutual interaction; (9) naturalism; and (10) theology of nature.

      Complex relationships are often best represented visually or imaginatively. Analogies and metaphors are helpful in exploring disciplinary boundaries, mapping complex structures, and framing potential relationships. In this section, we shall consider four ways of imagining the relation of science and religion. The first three make no religious assumptions; the fourth is based on some Christian assumptions, making it helpful for those who work within this way of thinking, although perhaps less useful for those who do not share its core theological assumptions. In what follows, we shall consider four ways of envisaging or imagining the relation of science and religion. They are not ‘models’, as this word is normally used, but are rather lenses or frameworks which allow us to visualize possible relationships.

      Science and Religion Offer Distinct Perspectives on Reality

      The first analogy invites us to see science and religion as offering distinct perspectives on a complex reality. I shall explore this approach as it is presented in the writings of Charles A. Coulson, one of the pioneers in the dialogue between science and religion. Coulson was Professor of Theoretical Chemistry at Oxford University and author of Science and Christian Belief (1955), an influential account of the relation of the natural sciences and Christianity.

      Coulson was an enthusiastic mountaineer and illustrated his approach with the Scottish mountain Ben Nevis. Coulson invited his readers to join him in an imaginative walk around this mountain and reflect on how the mountain appeared when viewed from different angles of approach. Seen from the south, the mountain presents itself as a ‘huge grassy slope’; from the north, as ‘rugged rock buttresses’. Regular visitors to the mountain are familiar with these different perspectives. ‘Each looks at the mountain; each sees certain things and each tries to describe his encounter with the mountain in terms that make sense. Each devises a language that is suitable for his particular purpose.’ The complex structure of Ben Nevis cannot be grasped fully from any single angle of approach. ‘Different views of the same reality will appear different, yet both be valid.’ A full description requires these different perspectives to be brought together, and integrated into a single coherent picture. The whole is the sum of these multiple perspectives.

      It was a simple analogy, and it is easily applied to the relation of science and faith. Coulson's core insight is that ‘different viewpoints yield different descriptions’. A scientist, a poet, and a theologian each offers a distinct perspective on the complex reality of our experience. Each describes what they see using their own distinct language and imagery. For Coulson, this shows the need for an overall, cumulative, and integrated picture of reality, with both science and religion offering their own perspectives, each of which is valid yet incomplete.

      This is a helpful approach. However, it offers a somewhat flat account of reality. Many would argue that reality is multi‐layered, and that each of these layers needs to be explored in a distinct way, adapted to its characteristics. This leads us neatly into the second approach we need to consider.

      Science and Religion Engage Distinct Levels of Reality

      The theoretical physicist Werner Heisenberg is one of many influential scientists who emphasize that it is not possible to speak of ‘the scientific method’. Each scientific discipline develops its own research methods, which are adapted to its research tasks and field of inquiry. ‘We need to remember that what we observe is not nature itself, but nature as it is disclosed by our methods of investigation.’ Heisenberg's point suggests that the scientific need to use a multiplicity of research methods leads to a corresponding plurality of perspectives or insights about reality, which thus need to be woven together in some way to give rise to the best possible overall representation of nature.

      Heisenberg recognizes both the complexity of the natural world and human experience, and offers an account of this which recognizes a plurality of approaches and intellectual outcomes. Heisenberg was able to accommodate both art and religion within his overall approach, distinguishing these from the natural sciences, while affirming their cultural legitimacy and intellectual distinctiveness. Art, science, and religion were the outcomes of different methods, and were to be seen as part of the greater human engagement with reality, which requires multiple research methods.

      This framework offers some important possibilities for both identifying the distinct ‘knowledge products’ of science and religion. It respects the difference between science and religion, avoiding any attempt to confuse or conflate them; however, it holds that it is possible to bring together the different levels of knowledge that they produce. As we shall consider at several points in this work, the natural sciences are primarily concerned with understanding how things function, whereas religion is more concerned with what they mean. These represent different levels of engagement with human existence. Yet they can be brought together to give a fuller and richer understanding of the distinct nature of humanity.

      Science and Religion Offer Distinct Maps of Reality

      A third approach is found in the writings of the British philosopher Mary Midgley, who frequently considered the relationship between the natural sciences and other disciplines. Midgley argued that the project of engaging the most important questions in human life demanded that a number of different conceptual tool‐boxes had to be used together to disclose the full picture of human existence. A single method of investigation will illuminate only some aspects of our world. To limit ourselves to the methods of the natural sciences in general, or one natural science (such as physics) in particular, leads to what Midgley calls a ‘bizarrely restrictive view of meaning’.

      Midgley thus argues that we need to develop ‘multiple maps’ of reality. No single approach is adequate to do justice to the natural world. We need ‘many windows’ on a complex reality if we are to represent it adequately rather than reduce it to one privileged perspective. Consider an atlas, which provides us with many maps of the same region – for example, North America or Europe. But why do we need so many maps to represent one region? Surely one is enough? Midgley's answer is simple: because different maps provide different information about the same reality.

      A physical map of Europe shows us the features of the landscape. A political map shows the borders of its nation states. Midgley's point is that each map is designed to answer a specific set of questions. What language is spoken here? Who rules this territory? Each map makes sense of the landscape by answering certain questions about it – and not others. If we want to gain a comprehensive understanding of our world, we have to find some way of bringing them all together. We might superimpose them, so that their information can be fully integrated. One map on its own cannot tell us everything we wish to know. It can help us understand part of a bigger picture – but to see the full picture we need multiple maps. Each map answers a different question – and each of those questions is important. Science maps our world at one level, explaining how it functions; religion maps our world at another level, explaining what it means.

      The Two Books: Two Complementary Approaches to Reality

Скачать книгу