Monday, May 3, 2010
Reflection on Eifelheim
I’d like to touch upon two questions raised in class. The first is about the interaction between religion and science and the concept of science as a doctrine. Mginsberg said a great deal about this in their two blog posts on Eifelheim and I found two statements very interesting. One was that we humans generally view science as knowledge about something tangible while religion is faith in the unseen. Thus, when left with unseen and incomprehensible forces such as sub-atomic particles, do our scientific beliefs come to resemble more of a religious faith? The second statement was that they found that when both creationism and the big bang theory are explained concurrently, they are not mutually exclusive. I personally agree with the idea that religion and science, while two separate subjects and lenses, are not at war with one another. How would it be heretical to say that God created neutrons and the natural forces that govern this world? Evolution does not negate the existence of God any more than the cancellation of Firefly mean that it wasn’t a work of genius. An all powerful being can create natural mechanisms, or natural mechanisms are simply there and the being is just along for the ride and works around them. Concerning the second question, science can indeed take on aspects of religion. Like religion, science can be used as a lens through which to view events. Rather than attributing a hurricane to Poseidon, one with a more scientific lens would attribute it to George Bush. I say George Bush not because he’s a deity, but because he contributes to global warming by the hot air that comes out of him and his unsustainable energy policies. That or such a person would simply blame meteorological conditions. Nevertheless, whether an outlook is based in faith in the supernatural or in reason, both still remain to be lenses and part of a person’s mentality. Concerning the unknown and the unseen, science can be used to comprehend phenomenon just as religion is. Instead of a miraculous recovery being attributed to a faith healing, it could instead be attributed to the placebo effect. Again this is not to say either is mutually exclusive. I personally believe that the laws of physics and nature are what make the world the way it is. However, if a car that’s spinning out of control nearly misses me I’ll attribute that near miss not to centrifugal force or friction, but providence.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think this post relates to what I commented on Children of God on sw2010's post- http://shortstormtrooper.blogspot.com/2010/05/children-of-god-substantive.html
ReplyDeleteIn that comment, I argue that the ending of Children of God detracts from its overall attempt to give meaning to the interaction between the three species. If human beings need coincidence, providence, or what you will to get along with an alien other, there is still little hope for humanity.
Your comment that science and religion are alternate lenses through which to view things made me think about the meaning of providence in hoping for humanity's mutual understanding of the alien other. Certainly, there are scientific forces at work in Children of God and Eifelheim. Neither species was able to visit an alien planet without the help of science, and even their interactions were, to some extent, governed by the laws of social science, or they could be said to follow patterns observed in the past by scientists. What becomes unquantifiable is the personal impact these interactions have on those involved. Your comment "if a car spinning out of control misses me..." made me think that religion is an appropriate lens through which to view events at a personal level.
D.W. Yarbrough observes that Catholicism is "poetry to live by." Religion could be said to matter on a personal level, the way poetry does. It might be described as that which is so personal, it can't be expressed scientifically. Most people, even the most rational and scientific, experience the sublime, and that experience makes religion necessary. If Isaac discovers music on Rakhat, or if Dietrich uses his religion and proto-humanism to attempt to serve an entirely alien species, any scientific explanation is insufficient to fully represent the interaction of one species with another.
How would it be heretical to say that God created neutrons and the natural forces that govern this world?
ReplyDeleteThe short answer is no, it would not be. In fact, that was precisely the attitude of the medieval Christian philosophers. You could even start with Augustine. They were all agreed that God had created things that had natures and that these natures were capable of acting directly upon one another.