Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism by Alvin Plantinga Page A
Authors: Alvin Plantinga
Tags: Religión, science, Retail, Non-Fiction, Philosophy, Amazon.com, 21st Century, Religious Studies, v.5, Scientism, Biology, Philosophy of Religion, Philosophy of Science
Ads: Link
computers, electric scooters, and smart phones that do everything but mow your lawn) simply can’t also believe in the spirit and wonder world of the New Testament.
Clearly, both of these claims deserve to be taken with a grain or two of salt. First, I, personally, have met people—physicists, for example—who participate in the modern world of science intellectually and existentially (if I understand what it is to participate in a world “existentially”), but nevertheless believe that God raised Jesus from the dead, that Jesus fed the five thousand and turned water into wine, that there are miraculous healings, that both angels and even Satan and his minions are active in the world, and so on. (Furthermore, it is likely that many of these physicists have a rather better grasp of the physics of radio transmission—not to mention subsequent developments—than Bultmann and his theological allies.) Indeed, if therelevant polls are to be trusted, some 40 percent of contemporary American scientists believe in a personal God who answers prayers—a percentage that has remained stable since 1916. 12 At the least, Bultmann and Gilkey seem a little optimistic about the extent to which their beliefs are shared—could it be that they are generalizing on the basis of an unrepresentative sample, themselves and their friends, perhaps? 13 And, second, one suspects they underestimate their own powers. If they tried really hard, they could probably stop just assuming the existence of an unbroken causal nexus in the world, a nexus that precludes special divine action, and instead ask themselves whether there is really any reason to think this assumption
true
.
Still, what they claim is that proper respect for modern science implies hands-off theology. And it isn’t only theologians who hold this view (of course I don’t mean to suggest that
all
or even
most
theologians agree with Bultmann and his friends). According to philosopher Philip Clayton, “Science has created a challenge to theology by its remarkable ability to explain and predict natural phenomena. Any theological system that ignores the picture of the world painted by scientific results is certain to be regarded with suspicion.” Well, fair enough; so far no problem. But Clayton goes on:
Science is often identified with determinism. In a purely deterministic universe there would be no room for God to work in the world except through the sort of miraculous intervention that Hume–and many of his readers–found to be soinsupportable.
Thus many, both inside and outside of theology, have abandoned any doctrine of divine action as incompatible with the natural sciences
. 14
Many scientists would concur. In addition to those dancing on the lunatic fringe such as Richard Dawkins and Peter Atkins, there are perfectly reasonable scientists who reject the idea of special divine action in the world. For example, in 2004 H. Allen Orr wrote a critical review of Richard Dawkins’s book
The Devil’s Chaplin
in which he suggested that Dawkins was too hard on religion. 15 In a letter to the editor, physiologist Carter Bancroft claimed that religion really was a danger to science because of the miracles religions claim. In his reply, Orr concurred: “It is not that some sects of one religion invoke miracles but that many sects of many religions do. (Moses, after all, parted the waters and Krishna healed the sick.) I agree of course that no sensible scientists can tolerate such exceptionalism with respect to the laws of nature.” 16 (Of course, if miracles really do occur, it won’t make a whole lot of difference whether scientists, sensible or not, are prepared to tolerate them; it really isn’t up to them.)
The problem, then, as these people see it, is this. Science discovers and endorses natural laws; if God did miracles or acted specially in the world, he would have to contravene these laws and miraculously intervene; and that is incompatible with science. Religion and
Clearly, both of these claims deserve to be taken with a grain or two of salt. First, I, personally, have met people—physicists, for example—who participate in the modern world of science intellectually and existentially (if I understand what it is to participate in a world “existentially”), but nevertheless believe that God raised Jesus from the dead, that Jesus fed the five thousand and turned water into wine, that there are miraculous healings, that both angels and even Satan and his minions are active in the world, and so on. (Furthermore, it is likely that many of these physicists have a rather better grasp of the physics of radio transmission—not to mention subsequent developments—than Bultmann and his theological allies.) Indeed, if therelevant polls are to be trusted, some 40 percent of contemporary American scientists believe in a personal God who answers prayers—a percentage that has remained stable since 1916. 12 At the least, Bultmann and Gilkey seem a little optimistic about the extent to which their beliefs are shared—could it be that they are generalizing on the basis of an unrepresentative sample, themselves and their friends, perhaps? 13 And, second, one suspects they underestimate their own powers. If they tried really hard, they could probably stop just assuming the existence of an unbroken causal nexus in the world, a nexus that precludes special divine action, and instead ask themselves whether there is really any reason to think this assumption
true
.
Still, what they claim is that proper respect for modern science implies hands-off theology. And it isn’t only theologians who hold this view (of course I don’t mean to suggest that
all
or even
most
theologians agree with Bultmann and his friends). According to philosopher Philip Clayton, “Science has created a challenge to theology by its remarkable ability to explain and predict natural phenomena. Any theological system that ignores the picture of the world painted by scientific results is certain to be regarded with suspicion.” Well, fair enough; so far no problem. But Clayton goes on:
Science is often identified with determinism. In a purely deterministic universe there would be no room for God to work in the world except through the sort of miraculous intervention that Hume–and many of his readers–found to be soinsupportable.
Thus many, both inside and outside of theology, have abandoned any doctrine of divine action as incompatible with the natural sciences
. 14
Many scientists would concur. In addition to those dancing on the lunatic fringe such as Richard Dawkins and Peter Atkins, there are perfectly reasonable scientists who reject the idea of special divine action in the world. For example, in 2004 H. Allen Orr wrote a critical review of Richard Dawkins’s book
The Devil’s Chaplin
in which he suggested that Dawkins was too hard on religion. 15 In a letter to the editor, physiologist Carter Bancroft claimed that religion really was a danger to science because of the miracles religions claim. In his reply, Orr concurred: “It is not that some sects of one religion invoke miracles but that many sects of many religions do. (Moses, after all, parted the waters and Krishna healed the sick.) I agree of course that no sensible scientists can tolerate such exceptionalism with respect to the laws of nature.” 16 (Of course, if miracles really do occur, it won’t make a whole lot of difference whether scientists, sensible or not, are prepared to tolerate them; it really isn’t up to them.)
The problem, then, as these people see it, is this. Science discovers and endorses natural laws; if God did miracles or acted specially in the world, he would have to contravene these laws and miraculously intervene; and that is incompatible with science. Religion and
Similar Books
