A Metaphor of Science and Religion

I would like to relay an interesting metaphor Francisco J. Ayala uses in his book: Darwin's Gift to Science and Religion.

On April 28, 1937 Nazi airplanes under Franco's command bombed Guernica leaving 1,654 of it's 7,000 inhabitants dead. In response, the Spanish painter Pablo Picasso painted his famous Guernica, a huge painting (25'8" X 11'6").

"Suppose I list the coordinates of all images represented in the painting, their size, the pigments used, and the quality of the canvas. This information would be interesting, but it would hardly be satisfying if I completely omitted aesthetic considerations and failed to reflect the painting's meaning and purpose, the dramatic message of man's inhumanity to man conveyed by the outstretched figure of the mother pulling her killed baby, the bellowing human faces, the wounded horse, and the satanic image of the bull. The point is that the physical description of the painting does not tell us anything (by itself it cannot tell us anything) about the aesthetic value or historical significance of Guernica; nor, on the other hand, do aesthetics or intended meaning determine the physical features of the painting."

"scientific knowledge, like the description of the size, materials, and geometry of Guernica, is satisfying and useful, but once science has had its say, there remains much about reality that is of interest: questions of value, meaning, and purpose that are forever beyond science's scope." (Ayala pp. 162-163)

Leia Mais…

Science vs. Religion?

It seems that quite a few people have subscribed to the conflict thesis of religion and science. The conflict thesis indicates that the two cannot co-exist. If one gains ground then this must somehow take away from the other.

This view frustrates me. Sure, religion and science differ somewhat in their approaches and differ substantially in their evidences, but can’t there be good taken from both? Why not let them mold together? Reconcile the good on both sides and paint a beautifully detailed and dynamic picture of the world. I can attest that the congruity of science and religion can be very satisfying.

Any good scientist will readily admit that there are limits to our observational ability. Consequently, our understanding is incomplete. It seems presumptuous to say religion must not be true, or that it must prove itself. On the other side, it is incredibly naïve for Christians to blindly refuse scientific data to help explain such things as the origin of life.

Science cannot be cornered, restricted to the boundaries of religious allowance.

It is unscientific to expect things in nature based on religious predispositions. This results in contrived results and retards objectivity. On the other hand, erroneous theories are not unique to the religious. Plenty of inaccurate observations have been made absent of any biblical influence.

Fortunately, a God-loving scientist is still far from an anomaly. In fact many Christians embrace scientific truths (and vice-versa), experiencing the same sense of discovery and cognitive liberation from revelations based on empirical data as they do from revelations on spiritual things.

"Although popular images of controversy continue to exemplify the supposed hostility of Christianity to new scientific theories, studies have shown that Christianity has often nurtured and encouraged scientific endeavor, while at other times the two have co-existed without either tension or attempts at harmonization. If Galileo and the Scopes trial come to mind as examples of conflict, they were the exceptions rather than the rule."
-Gary Ferngren, Science & Religion, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002

Leia Mais…

Specialization Leading to Cultural Atrophy

I read an interesting quote this week:

"Poetry of many kinds gave me great pleasure, and even as a school boy I took intense delight in Shakespeare, especially in the historical plays. I have also said that formerly pictures gave me considerable, and music very great delight. But now for many years I cannot endure to read a line of poetry: I have tried lately to read Shakespeare, and found it so intolerably dull that it nauseated me. I have also almost lost my taste for pictures or music. My mind seems to have become a kind of machine for grinding general laws out of large collections of facts, but why this should have caused the atrophy of that part of the brain alone, on which the higher tastes depend, I cannot conceive. The loss of these tastes is a loss of happiness, and may possibly be injurious to the intellect, and more probably to the moral character, by enfeebling the emotional part of our nature."

Charles Darwin

Leia Mais…