Science, religion, and the quest for knowledge and truth: an Islamic perspective

This article consists of two parts. The first one is to a large extent a commentary on John R. Staver’s “Skepticism, truth as coherence, and constructivist epistemology: grounds for resolving the discord between science and religion?” The second part is a related overview of Islam’s philosophy of knowledge and, to a certain degree, science. In responding to Staver’s thesis, I rely strongly on my scientific education and habit of mind; I also partly found my views on my Islamic background, though I enlarge my scope to consider western philosophical perspectives as well. I differ with Staver in his definition of the nature, scope, and goals of religion (concisely, “explaining the world and how it works”), and I think this is the crux of the matter in attempting to resolve the perceived “discord” between science and religion. The heart of the problem is in the definition of the domains of action of science and religion, and I address this issue at some length, both generically and using Islamic principles, which are found to be very widely applicable. The concept of “reality,” so important to Staver’s thesis, is also critically reviewed. The philosophy of knowledge (and of science) in Islam is briefly reviewed in the aim of showing the great potential for harmony between the two “institutions” (religion and science), on the basis of the following philosophy: science describes nature, whereas religion gives us not only a philosophy of existence but also an interpretative cloak for the discoveries of science and for the meaning of the cosmos and nature. I conclude by insisting that though science and religion can be considered as two worldviews that propose to describe “reality” and to explain our existence and that of the world; they may come to compete for humans’ minds and appear to enter into a conflicting position, but only if and when we confuse their domains and modes of action.      

Science and religion: implications for science educators

A religious perspective on life shapes how and what those with such a perspective learn in science; for some students a religious perspective can hinder learning in science. For such reasons Staver’s article is to be welcomed as it proposes a new way of resolving the widely perceived discord between science and religion. Staver notes that Western thinking has traditionally postulated the existence and comprehensibility of a world that is external to and independent of human consciousness. This has led to a conception of truth, truth as correspondence, in which our knowledge corresponds to the facts in this external world. Staver rejects such a conception, preferring the conception of truth as coherence in which the links are between and among independent knowledge claims themselves rather than between a knowledge claim and reality. Staver then proposes constructivism as a vehicle potentially capable of resolving the tension between religion and science. My contention is that the resolution between science and religion that Staver proposes comes at too great a cost—both to science and to religion. Instead I defend a different version of constructivism where humans are seen as capable of generating models of reality that do provide richer and more meaningful understandings of reality, over time and with respect both to science and to religion. I argue that scientific knowledge is a subset of religious knowledge and explore the implications of this for science education in general and when teaching about evolution in particular.     

Skepticism, truth as coherence, and constructivist epistemology: grounds for resolving the discord between science and religion?

Science and religion exhibit multiple relationships as ways of knowing. These connections have been characterized as cousinly, mutually respectful, non-overlapping, competitive, proximate-ultimate, dominant-subordinate, and opposing-conflicting. Some of these ties create stress, and tension between science and religion represents a significant chapter in humans’ cultural heritage before and since the Enlightenment. Truth, knowledge, and their relation are central to science and religion as ways of knowing, as social institutions, and to their interaction. In religion, truth is revealed through God’s word. In science, truth is sought after via empirical methods. Discord can be viewed as a competition for social legitimization between two social institutions whose goals are explaining the world and how it works. Under this view, the root of the discord is truth as correspondence. In this concept of truth, knowledge corresponds to the facts of reality, and conflict is inevitable for many because humans want to ask which one—science or religion—gets the facts correct. But, the root paradox, also known as the problem of the criterion, suggests that seeking to know nature as it is represents a fruitless endeavor. The discord can be set on new ground and resolved by taking a moderately skeptical line of thought, one which employs truth as coherence and a moderate form of constructivist epistemology. Quantum mechanics and evolution as scientific theories and scientific research on human consciousness and vision provide support for this line of argument. Within a constructivist perspective, scientists would relinquish only the pursuit of knowing reality as it is. Scientists would retain everything else. Believers who hold that religion explains reality would come to understand that God never revealed His truth of nature; rather, He revealed His truth in how we are to conduct our lives.     

The conflict between science and religion: a discussion on the possibilities for settlement

In his article Skepticism, truth as coherence, and construtivist epistemology: grounds for resolving the discord between science and religion?, John Staver identifies what he considers to be the source of the conflicts between science and religion: the establishment of the relationship between truth and knowledge, from the perspective of those who see a correspondence between reality and knowledge, assumed in the realm of both contending fields. In the present work, although agreeing with the general principles of constructivism, I discuss Staver’s option of viewing truth as coherence and his proposal of renouncing the objective of knowing reality from both fields’ perspective. Three aspects of Staver’s article are commented and discussed here: the one referring to views of reality or of nature as shared by scientists; the one concerning the different forms of religious beliefs among scientists; and the one accounting for the impossibility, from the standpoint of constructivism, of determining limits to the objectives of science and religion. Also emphasized in this discussion is the importance of combining theoretical and methodological approaches in tune with the complexity of the theme under discussion, accounting for the need to preserve the freedom of thinking and of doing research.     

Should science educators deal with the science/religion issue?

I begin by examining the natures of science and religion before looking at the ways in which they relate to one another. I then look at a number of case studies that centre on the relationships between science and religion, including attempts to find mechanisms for divine action in quantum theory and chaos theory, creationism, genetic engineering and the writings of Richard Dawkins. Finally, I consider some of the pedagogical issues that would need to be considered if the science/religion issue is to be addressed in the classroom. I conclude that there are increasing arguments in favour of science educators teaching about the science/religion issue. The principal reason for this is to help students better to learn science. However, such teaching makes greater demands on science educators than has generally been the case. Certain of these demands are identified and some specific suggestions are made as to how a science educator might deal with the science/religion issue.     

All Christians? Experiences of science educators in Northern Ireland

In this paper we respond to Staver’s article (this issue) on an attempt to resolve the discord between science and religion. Most specifically, we comment on Staver’s downplaying of difference between Catholics and Protestants in order to focus on the religion-science question. It is our experience that to be born into one or other of these traditions in some parts of the world (especially Northern Ireland) resulted in starkly contrasting opportunities, identities and practices in becoming and being science educators. The paper starts with a short contextual background to the impact of religion on schooling and higher education in Northern Ireland. We then explore the lives and careers of three science/religious educators in Northern Ireland: Catholic (Jim) and Protestant (Ivor) males who are contemporaries and whose experience spans pre-Troubles to post-conflict and a Catholic female (Colette) who moved to Northern Ireland during the Troubles as a teenager. Finally, we discuss the situation regarding the teaching of creationism and evolution in Northern Ireland—an issue has recently generated high public interest. The Chair of the Education Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly recently stated that “creationism is not for the RE class because I believe that it can stand scientific scrutiny and that is a debate which I am quite happy to encourage and be part of…” (News Letter 2008). It could be the case that the evolution debate is being fuelled as a deliberate attempt to undermine some of the post-conflict collaboration projects between schools and communities in Northern Ireland.     

Applying scientific openmindedness to religion and science education

Mahner's and Bunge's two main theses are nearly correct as social reports but the extent to which they are wrong is philosophically very important. I draw attention to a philosophically superior way of viewing the essential relation between science and religion which can have a humane or benign influence upon how both science and religion are taught. On the one hand, science does not need to fight religion nor try to suppress it. A generous openness of mind, which distinguishes the critical rationality implicit in the advance of science, deserves to be applied without acrimony to any systems of thought that purport to explain the universe. On the other hand, religions have no need to fear the growth of scientific knowledge, provided science is not confused, as Mahner and Bunge confuse it, with its materialistic interpretation.     

技术时代的科学与宗教之思

科学与宗教对立之关键在“上帝在与否”,它实则牵涉到科学与宗教的方法问题,这个问题可归结为科学方法是不是人类与世界交往唯一的和具有绝对支配地位的方法。科学与宗教本乃人心智活动之不同层面,前者着眼人的认知,后者关涉人的伦理。“上帝”的缺席导致人伦理生活以及人与自然关系的恶化,这种后果随着时间的推移巳愈益变得明显。在人们已越来越意识到科学技术的局限性的今天,我们重新审视科学与宗教的关系也就显得颇有意义。     

Imagining the World: The Significance of Religious Worldviews for Science Education

This article begins by examining whether ‘science’ and ‘religion’ can better be seen as distinct or related worldviews, focusing particularly on scientific and religious understandings of biodiversity. I then explore how people can see the natural world, depending on their worldview, by looking at two contrasting treatments of penguin behaviour, namely that provided in the film March of the Penguins and in the children’s book And Tango Makes Three. I end by drawing some initial conclusions as to what might and what might not be included about religion in school science lessons. Science educators and teachers need to take account of religious worldviews if some students are better to understand the compass of scientific thinking and some of science’s key conclusions. It is perfectly possible for a science teacher to be respectful of the worldviews that students occupy, even if these are scientifically limited, while clearly and non-apologetically helping them to understand the scientific worldview on a particular issue.     

Beyond Evolution: Addressing Broad Interactions Between Science and Religion in Science Teacher Education

Science and religion are two indisputably profound and durable cultural forces with a complex history of interaction. As ASTE members are aware, these interactions often manifest themselves in classrooms and in the surrounding communities. In this essay, we encourage science teacher educators to broaden their perspectives of science–religion interactions so that they may better assist pre- and in-service science teachers with addressing topics such as the age and origins of the universe and biological evolution in an appropriate manner. We first introduce some foundational scholarship into the historical interactions between science and religion as well as current efforts to maintain healthy dialogue between perspectives that are frequently characterized as innately in conflict with or mutually exclusive of one another. Given that biological evolution is the dominant science–religion issue of our day, in particular in the USA, we next summarize the origins and strategies of anti-evolution movements via the rise and persistence of Christian Fundamentalism. We then summarize survey and qualitative sociological research indicating disparities between academic scientists and the general public with regard to religious beliefs to help us further understand our students’ worldviews and the challenges they often face in campus-to-classroom transitions. We conclude the essay by providing resources and practical suggestions, including legal considerations, to assist science teacher educators with their curriculum and outreach.     

Critical Review of Mary Midgley's Intelligent Design Theory and Other Ideological Problems

Mary Midgley's pamphlet Intelligent Design Theory and Other Ideological Problems has been a widely read contribution to discussions of the place of creationism in schools. In this critique of her account, I outline Midgley's view of the relations between science and religion, her claims about what material can legitimately appear in science lessons, and her account of the nature of religion. I argue that she is mistaken in all three areas, and show that her most plausible reply to these criticisms also fails. Finally, I offer some thoughts on the proper relations between science and religion in the classroom.     

Students’ Perceptions of Religion and Science,and How They Relate: the Effects of a Classroom Intervention

Abstract

In England, both Religious Education (RE) and science are mandatory parts of the school curriculum throughout the 5-16 age range. Nevertheless, there remain concerns that, as in many countries, students do not have a good understanding about the scope of each subject nor about how the two subjects relate. This article reports on a study that involved an intervention of six lessons in RE and six in science that were intended to help 13-15?year-old students develop a better appreciation for the relationship(s) between science and religion and a less reductionist understanding of biology. Our focus here is on the understandings that students have about the relationship between science and religion. The intervention was successful in improving the understandings of almost half of the students interviewed, but in these interviews we still found many instances where students showed misunderstandings of the nature of both religious and scientific knowledge. We argue that RE needs to attend to questions regarding the nature of knowledge if students are to develop better understandings of the scope of religions and how they arrive at their knowledge claims.     

池田大作科技思想研究

池田大作从科学社会学角度对科学文化作了深入的研究和评论,他指出科学是用理性方法获得的知识体系;科学技术是一把“双刃剑”：一方面它可以用来为人类的幸福服务,另一方面它又会给人类带来各种各样的危机;科学与人文之间具有互补性;现代社会不能离开科学,但是宗教应该有领导科学技术的地位和作用;在解决当代社会的问题中,科学文化有其应有的作用,但根本还在“依正不二”的理念;他对现代东方社会如何更好地发展科学文化提出了许多发人深省的观点。池田大作的科技思想是东方思想界对西方科学技术和科技文化的一种重要的观点和态度。     

Hindu Responses to Darwinism: Assimilation and Rejection in a Colonial and Post-Colonial Context

Hindu responses to Darwinism, like Christian, have run the gamut from outright rejection to fairly robust but limited accommodations of the Darwinian perspective. Despite certain features of Hindu thought such as the enormous time-scales of traditional cosmogonies that may suggest considerable affinity with modern notions of organic evolution, more often than not traditional assumptions have worked against deep engagement with Darwinism, allowing only for superficial assimilation at best. Three fundamental factors have affected Hindu responses to Darwinism: the great diversity within the tradition spanning evolutionist and creationist perspectives, the encounter with Darwinism in the late nineteenth century as part of an alien culture, and the fact that this encounter occurred within a colonial context. This essay explores the complex interactions of these three factors, beginning with the diversity within the ancient and classical cosmological traditions, followed by consideration of colonial developments and the emergence of four representative Hindu approaches to Darwinism: Modern Vedic Evolutionism, Anthropic Vedic Evolutionism, Reactionary Vedic Evolutionism, and Modern Vedic Creationism. The essay concludes by discussing various epistemological issues in the attempts of modern Hindu apologists to legitimize Vedic world views. These issues include the appeal to modern science to confirm traditional ideals and values, while simultaneously subordinating scientific method to spiritual means of knowledge, or rejecting scientific methodology with its inbuilt skepticism entirely.     

Towards a pragmatic science in schools

This paper contrasts naive beliefs about the nature of science, with science as it appears from sociological and philosophical study, feminist critique and insights from multicultural education. I draw implications from these informed views to suggest how school science might be modified to project a pragmatic view of science to its students that allows students to know science and its relationships to themselves and society in multi-faceted ways. From these perspectives, pragmatic school science is situated within a values framework that questions how we know. Pragmatic school science also requires that the naive inductivist views that permeate school science inquiry methods at present be modified to recognise that observations and inquiry are guided by prior knowledge and values; that new knowledge is tentative; that some knowledge has high status, as it has been constructed consensually over a long period; but that even high status knowledge can be challenged. For implementation of these reforms, yet still to embrace the need for some students to appropriate understanding of discipline knowledge required for advanced science education, a broad set of aims is required.     

Science and citizenship education

I argue that there is potential for collaborative work between science educators and citizenship educators. However, following comments about that potential, I raise a number of challenges. Those challenges relate to the public perception of science, narrow academic perspectives of some science educators, and problematic attempts to develop a form of science education that, at times, some have claimed is relevant to — or, even, a form of — citizenship education. The latter point is considered with reference to some science educators’ perceptions concerning the nature of citizenship and citizenship education. I argue that the perceptions of some science educators seem to suggest significant differences in understanding from at least some of those who would regard themselves as citizenship education specialists. In the final main section of the article, I suggest, briefly, some ways in which further work to develop collaboration between science educators and citizenship educators could be considered.     

Teach me,but don't disagree with me

Polarized politics is combining with the black‐and‐white thinking that prevails among many traditional‐age college students and the often strong opinions of educators to produce a climate of frustration and discord on some American college campuses.What can be done to create a respectful environment where students feel their perspectives will be heard?     

Whose Science and Whose Religion? Reflections on the Relations between Scientific and Religious Worldviews

Arguments about the relationship between science and religion often proceed by identifying a set of essential characteristics of scientific and religious worldviews and arguing on the basis of these characteristics for claims about a relationship of conflict or compatibility between them. Such a strategy is doomed to failure because science, to some extent, and religion, to a much larger extent, are cultural phenomena that are too diverse in their expressions to be characterized in terms of a unified worldview. In this paper I follow a different strategy. Having offered a loose characterization of the nature of science, I pose five questions about specific areas where religious and scientific worldviews may conflict—questions about the nature of faith, the belief in a God or Gods, the authority of sacred texts, the relationship between scientific and religious conceptions of the mind/soul, and the relationship between scientific and religious understandings of moral behavior. My review of these questions will show that they cannot be answered unequivocally because there is no agreement amongst religious believers as to the meaning of important religious concepts. Thus, whether scientific and religious worldviews conflict depends essentially upon whose science and whose religion one is considering. In closing, I consider the implications of this conundrum for science education.     

从“经验之塔”理论看增强现实教学媒体优势研究

文章基于"经验之塔"理论对增强现实教学媒体的教学优势进行研究,通过对增强现实教学媒体与其他常见的教学媒体的对比分析和实证研究发现:增强现实教学媒体在展现科学结构和科学过程知识内容方面,较其他常见的教学媒体可以使学习者更好地获得和理解相关知识,达到更好的认知效果。     

Scientists’ Ontological and Epistemological Views about Science from the Perspective of Critical Realism

Including the perspectives of scientists about the nature and process of science is important for an authentic and nuanced portrayal of science in science education. The small number of studies that have explored scientists’ worldviews about science has thus far generated contradictory findings, with recent studies claiming that scientists simultaneously hold contradictory sophisticated and naïve views. This article reports on an exploratory study that uses the framework of Bhaskar’s critical realism to elicit and separately analyse academic scientists’ ontological and epistemological views about science in semi-structured interviews. When the views of scientists are analysed through the lens of critical realism, it is clear that it is possible to hold a realist ontological commitment about what knowledge is of, simultaneously with a fallibilist epistemological commitment about knowledge itself. The apparent incongruence of scientists’ so-called naïve and sophisticated views about science is resolved when analysed using a critical realist framework. Critical realism offers a simple and coherent framework for science educators that avoids many of the problems of positivism and social constructivism by finding a middle ground between them. The three pillars of critical realism: ontological realism, epistemological fallibilism and judgmental rationality help to make sense of how socially constructed scientific knowledge can be anchored in an independent reality.