|
|
|
||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
The problems of boundaries in the study of science and religionIt could be said that both science and religion are attempts to explain the truth. They are systems of belief that, their proponents will say, explain how the world works. They both tend to maintain that there is a truth to be found, and that their system represents that truth, with any deviations being the result of human error. Where they differ is how they come by their interpretations of the truth. Scientists rely on experimentally verifiable facts, whereas religion relies more on faith and emotional conviction. But is the boundary between them really as clear as that? Topics that used to be considered strictly in the domain of religion (e.g. the creation of the universe, the evolution of humans) have now been taken over by science. Topics currently reserved for religion (e.g. creation of life, resurrection) might someday also become scientific knowledge. Also, there are systems of belief or teaching that do not sit comfortably in either camp. Transcendental Meditation is derived from Hindu teachings, but denies it is a religion. Acupuncture is practised by trained doctors, yet is shunned by mainstream science. If we look back to before the 19th century, science was not considered separate from religion at all. The word 'scientist' was not coined until 1833. Educated Christians tried to better understand God's creation, yet were careful never to contradict the bible. Galileo demonstrated that the Earth was not the centre of the universe, and was tried as a heretic. During the 19th century, science began to distance itself from religion. Figures such as Darwin described a world without need of a god. Science began to encroach upon, then supersede religious belief, and the boundary between them began to shift. When beliefs change from religious to scientific, can we define what is religion and what is science? We can easily think of examples that we call religions - Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and others - but then there are the slightly less mainstream systems such as Transcendental Meditation and Scientology? Are they also religions? Scientology says it is, yet many governments (Britain, France, Germany) believe it is not. Transcendental Meditation says it isn't, yet courts in the USA say it is. Philosophies such as Confucianism or Marxism are sometimes described as quasi-religious. Are they religions or not? What about football or television, which although we might think are clearly not religions, actually share many common features such as devotional behaviour, set times and places of worship, characters and personalities to be revered. The dictionary definition of religion is "The belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship." At first glance, it seems a reasonable definition, but it rules out Buddhism, which has no place for any sort of god entitled to worship. Does this mean Buddhism is not a religion, or does it mean our definition needs revising? Ninian Smart attempted to define a religion more broadly, by describing seven 'dimensions' (practical/ritual, experiential/emotional, narrative/mythic, doctrinal/philosophical, ethical/legal, social/institutional and material) that all religions have in some proportion. Any system you suspect is a religion, you examine and look for each of the seven dimensions. However, these dimensional models tend to include many activities one would normally not consider religious. Smart himself demonstrated that Marxism and Nationalism fit all the criteria of religions. So attempts to define religion, to draw a boundary around it, tend either to exclude something we think should be a religion, or include things we think should not. Our task is not helped by the fact that 'religion' in this context is a term invented by westerners in the 18th century, and some 'religions' are in fact a creation of western attempts to categorise the world. Hinduism in particular was originally a catchall term applied to inhabitants of the Indian region who followed neither Buddhism nor Islam nor any other identifiable religion. What is labelled 'Hinduism' is in fact a bewildering variety of beliefs and practices that share few, if any, common features. This disparity can be seen to a lesser degree in Christianity. Even the larger churches such as Catholicism and Russian Orthodoxy differ widely in their practices, while of the many small churches in the USA, some have quite bizarre rituals and beliefs (dancing with rattlesnakes, polygamous marriages) that bear little resemblance to mainstream Christianity. Is Hinduism a single religion? Is Christianity a single religion? Do they include all the minor offshoots, and if so how do we explain the inconsistencies of belief and practice? If not, where is the boundary between what is Christianity (or Hinduism) and what isn't? If we can't even draw clear boundaries around two apparently obvious religions, what chance do we have of drawing a boundary around religion as a whole? Is science any clearer? Scientists tend to adopt the two-track approach, i.e. there is 'right' and there is 'wrong'. Any 'wrong' theories (a flat Earth, the ether) are the result of human error, and are stepping stones in the process of finding the 'right' theory. To them, what is 'science' is what has been found to be true. However, this is of little use in determining what is science now. What is now 'right' may later be proven 'wrong', and vice versa. Science is a community of people, and people are subject to prejudice, politics, and social attitudes. Victorian spiritualism (seances, table turning, etc.) was considered a legitimate scientific study by many scientists of the time, such as Wallace, Crookes and even Faraday. However, some thought it too religious, in a time when science was trying to distance itself from religion; while others considered it too feminine (many prominent mediums were women) in a time when women were considered intellectually inferior. Politics ran its course, and spiritualism was branded unscientific, without ever being conclusively proven either 'right' or 'wrong'. If we look at modern examples, such as acupuncture, we have to ask if they are actually unscientific, or merely unfashionable. The British Medical Council has recently given limited approval to the practice of acupuncture, having been convinced there is evidence that it works. However, there has been little research into how it works, so can it be regarded as science? Consider UFO sightings. Most astrophysicists agree aliens exist in some form, somewhere in the universe. However, those same astrophysicists may scoff at the idea of them visiting the Earth. If someone talks of 'aliens' from 'outer space', it may or may not be 'right' science. If a different person instead uses the words 'angels' and 'heaven', they may be trying to describe the same event, yet now we ask if it is genuine religion. How can accurate boundaries be drawn when the same observation could be part of religion or science, or neither? So we have seen that the boundaries around religion and science cannot easily be described. A single belief can move from religion, to science, to superstition over the course of history. Things we feel are religions (e.g. Buddhism) get excluded by one definition while things we feel are not (e.g. Nationalism) get included by another. A subject can be investigated scientifically (e.g. Spiritualism), then denounced for social or political reasons. These vague, shifting and imprecise boundaries make it extremely hard to precisely define either religion or science, making their study a problematic thing. Bibliography
|
|
Except where stated, this site and its contents are copyright ©2009 Alec Harkness and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 License.