Sebastian MATEIESCU

Directory of Open Access Journals

129  SCIENCE AND RELIGION AND THE MYTH OF THEIR CONFLICT  Peter  Harrison  (ed.),  The  Cambridge  Companion  to  Science  and  Religion,  (Cambridge: Cambridge  University  Press,  2010),  ISBN  –  10:  0521712513,  ISBN  – 13: 9780521712514, pp. 322.  Sebastian MATEIESCU   The scholarly but also the public interest in the relationship between science and  religion  has  registered  a  remarkable  increase  in  the  last  years.  The  Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion is meant to be a solid introduction to the historical, philosophical and scientific aspects of this connection. The fourteen essays of the book deal with religion as understood in western Christianity and their common aim is to argue against the myth that science and religion are in conflict. The “conflict myth,” mostly advanced in the nineteenth century by the works of John Draper1 and Andrew Dickson White,2 is denounced here as “erroneous.” The first set of arguments for this, corresponding to the first part of the book, draws on the historical evidence for the peaceful  coexistence  of  the  two  domains.  The  first  essay,  penned  by  David  C. Lindberg,  focuses  on  the  positive  interaction  between  science  and  religion  in  the patristic and medieval period. It also discusses some key exceptions to this profitable cooperation between science and religion: Tertullian (195–215), Hypatia (355–415), and the condemnation of Aristotelian philosophy by the Catholic bishops issued in Paris in the 13th century. Yet, the author’s opinion is that these examples do not prompt  advocacy  of  the  “conflict  myth” because  such  “struggles  were  exceptions rather then the rule” (p. 31). Notwithstanding, Augustine’s interpretation of science as a  handmaiden  to  religion  is  taken  to  be  the  dominant  attitude  up  until  the  late medieval period (p. 31). However, the analysis of the patristic period seems to be too minimal  and  it  also  suffers  from  not  referring  to  some  important  works  in  the field.3Moreover,  I  think  an  important  and  controversial   episode  is  omitted  in Lindberg’s story, namely the well-known 14th century dispute over the role of the sciences  in  the  economy  of  salvation  between  Gregory  Palamas  (monk  at  Mount Athos, later celebrated as a Saint by the Christian Orthodox Church) and Barlaam of Calabria, Latin theologian and philosopher.4   The essay by John Henry closely follows Harrison’s thesis that early modern empirical science was favored by religious views.5 Like Lindberg, Henry also stresses that the conflict paradigm is due to a Whiggish portrayal of the history of science and religion (p. 39). Unfortunately, neither this essay nor the next one by Jonathan R. Topham (dealing with the history of natural theology) makes any reference to a central                                                   Center For Logic, History and the Philosophy of Science, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Bucharest, Splaiul Independentei 204, Bucharest, email: sebastian.mateiescu@gmail.com    Sebastian Mateiescu - Science and Religion and the Myth of their Conflict  130  figure  of  the  science  and  religion  dialogue  in  the  early  modern  period,  the  great Reformator  Philipp  Melanchthon  (1497–1560).  Recent  scholarship  has  shown Melanchthon’s  crucial  contribution  to  the  implementation  and  development  of science in reformed Germany and abroad, a process upheld by Melanchthon’s specific theological view on the sciences as depositories of God’s providence.6 Topham’s work however  makes  a  good  case  for  the  idea  that  natural  theology  appeared  and functioned in agreement with the content of revealed theology and not detached from it (pp. 61–62).   John  Hedley  Broke’s  essay  capitalizes  on  similar  arguments  in  order  to underpin the idea that the progress of science has not necessarily led to secularization. He concedes that, “it is surely more accurate to say that scientific theories have been susceptible of both theistic and atheistic readings” (p. 110).    This last statement is representative for the essays that form the second part of the book, where different facets of design and teleology in nature are discussed from the point of view of modern science. An interesting illustration of this occurs in the  essay  by  Simon  Conway  Morris,  where  evolution  towards  intelligent  life  is explained in analogy with a search engine devised to search back in the history of organisms in order to find the prerequisites of life in more complex organizational structures.     Nancy Murphy’s account of divine action in the context of contemporary philosophy contains some of the most positive conclusions given in the third part of the book. Murphy is confident in the success of a combination between Peacocke’s panentheist theory, which holds both God’s presence in the world and the world’s presence in God, and the pantheist account of the quantum divine action approach (QDA). However, I am less enthusiastic in assenting to this idea given the fact that Peacocke’s  theory  does  not  seem  to  be  fully  pantheistic  and  furthermore,  the problems of QDA exceed those mentioned by Murphy.7   Though not the final article in the volume, Michael Ruse’s essay, which deals with  some  traditional  categories  relevant  to  the  relationship  between  science  and religion,  such  as  “independence,”  “conflict”  and  “interaction”  is  worth  using  for concluding this survey. Ruse declares that the two domains inevitably interact and clash, but that this does not interfere at all with the possibility of developing religious faith (p. 241).     All in all, this Companion fulfills its goal of providing us with a consistent introduction  to  some  of  the  most  significant  themes  that  deal  with  science  and religion. However, compared with similar achievements,8 it has the drawback that it does  not  treat  about  the  relationship  between  Christianity  and  other  religious traditions in the context of the science and religion dialogue.   Acknowledgements. Research for this paper has been supported by CNCS grant no. PN-II-ID-2011-3-0719: From Natural History to Science: The Emergence of Experimental Philosophy.      Society and Politics                                                              Vol. 6, No. 2 (12)/November 2012  131                                                   References 1 Draper, J. W., History of the Conflict between Religion and Science, 7th edition (London: Henry S. King, 1876). 2  White, A. D.,  A  History  of  the  Warfare  of  Science  with  Theology  in  Christendom  (New  York: Appleton, 1896). 3  See  for  example,  Callahan,  J.  F.,  “Greek  Philosophy  and  Cappadocian  Cosmology”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 12(1958): 29-57. 4 For more details, see Meyendorff, J.,  A Study of Gregory Palamas (New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1964). 5 Harrison, P., The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). 6 For more details, see Kusukawa, S.,  The Transformation of Natural Philosophy: The Case of Philip Melanchthon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). 7 Saunders, N., Divine Action and Modern Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). 8  Science  and  Religion:  New  Historical  Perspectives,  eds.  T.  Dixon,  G.  Cantor  and  S.  Pumfrey (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010). 

SCIENCE AND RELIGION AND THE MYTH OF THEIR CONFLICT Peter Harrison (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), ISBN – 10: 0521712513, ISBN – 13: 9780521712514, pp. 322.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION AND THE MYTH OF THEIR CONFLICT Peter Harrison (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), ISBN – 10: 0521712513, ISBN – 13: 9780521712514, pp. 322.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Directory of Open Access Journals