|
[Zygon, vol. 40, no. 1 (March 2005).]
© 2005 by the Joint Publication Board of Zygon. ISSN 0591-2385
Open in Adobe Reader
FORTY YEARS:
HOPE IN THE MIDST OF CONTRADICTION
Thirty-nine years ago, persons of insight and courage sent the first issue of
this journal on its way into the world. They were sensitive to the challenges
of the social and cultural situation in which they lived, and they
formulated a vision within that situation that pointed the journal toward
the future. Even though so much has changed in the forty years since they
launched their project that we might say today we live in a different world,
the fundamental challenges and the mission remain—urgently demanding
our attention.
The founding group described the challenge of their situation as "the
widening chasm in twentieth century culture between values and knowledge,
or good and truth, or religion and science, is disruptive, if not lethal
for human destiny." Zygon was their name for the journal and also for
their project. Zygon, a Greek term for anything that joins two bodies ("especially
a team which must effectively pull together"), embodies their understanding
of their mission: the yoking or harnessing of that which has
become split, religion and science, so that the two might work together for
the common welfare. The group was itself a result of a yoking—scientists
who were leaders of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences with liberal
theologians and clergy from several religious traditions who had established
a Conference on the Coming Great Church, which aimed to rise
above narrow boundaries of creed or denomination in favor of common
understandings.
Looking back to these activities that are rooted in the American experience
of the 1950s and 60s, we are struck by the almost unimaginable changes
that have taken place in the ensuing years. The changes in the landscape of
scientific knowledge are sensational; the contours of religious thinking and
practice are significantly different. In the context of this change, it is sobering
to recognize that the more science, culture, and religion have changed,
the more fundamental challenges and mission have remained the same.
The depth and breadth of the change underscore the significance of the
sameness. Although science and religion have morphed into different shapes,
the chasm between value and knowledge, goodness and truth, religion and
science, remains as an underlying rhythm of our common life.
I speak of the "chasm" between religion and science, following the initial
editorial in 1966; other terms are commonly used to describe the same
phenomenon—"warfare," "alienation," "conflict." Whatever the term, it
cannot be applied simplistically; a nuanced understanding is necessary if
we are to grasp adequately the relationship between religion and science.
A certain contradiction is inherent in any discussion of the relationship.
If there is any doubt that the chasm between religion and science can be
raw and hostile, we have only to look at two sectors of our culture that are
mirror images of each another. The one includes large numbers of the
intelligentsia who have simply lost confidence that religion, intellectually
in its theology and philosophy or practically in its worship and ethical
behavior, can take the measure of the sciences and speak significantly to a
scientifically informed world. Many scientists at the highest levels within
their communities of research, policy-making, and teaching, along with
others who are shaped by scientific modes of thinking, sincerely believe
that religion at best is an anachronism and at worst a danger to society.
Not only does traditional religious thinking—beliefs and scriptures—seem
to this group to be hopelessly archaic, empty of any significance for contemporary
people, but religion is also held accountable for fostering violence,
prejudice, and obstructing the common good. In another sector of
culture many religious conservatives, including fundamentalists of all sorts,
think that the intellectuals who have given up on religion are the enemy.
They represent an "atheistic," "materialistic," and "reductionist" scientific
ideology against which religion must be defended.
Most public discussion of religion and science begins here, on the tense
frontier between these two groups; their attacks and counterattacks on
each other get most of the media attention. Outright contradiction enters
the picture when we go beyond this battleground. Beyond the bitter conflict
we find voices that fly directly in the face of both the despisers and
fundamentalists.
There is a near consensus among historians that over the millennia the
boundaries between religion and science have never been impenetrable.
Monographs describe in detail the many and frequent instances in which
science and religion have made a reciprocal impact on each other, in every
culture that has been studied. These historians consider talk about "warfare"
uninformed and unuseful. The historians' judgment has encouraged
a cadre of thinkers who constitute the "religion and science movement."
This movement encompasses a variety of persons who concern themselves
with building bridges between religion and science: (1) scholars from many
fields (including religious studies and the sciences), (2) adherents of a broad
range of religious beliefs and practices, (3) persons from the various professions.
Their efforts have flourished impressively in the last half century,
establishing centers and programs of academic study, while producing an
avalanche of periodicals and books. As the articles by Philip Clayton and
John Polkinghorne in this issue argue, participants in this community believe
that they have made real progress in "understanding commonalities"
and forging "productive partnerships" between religion and science (Clayton).
As hostilities have raged, stoked equally by the scientifically informed
intellectual despisers of religion and the fundamentalist defenders, alternative
religious responses have been emerging. It is important to recognize
that these responses are genuinely religious in character. Although they are
informed by and even overlap the work of both the historians and the
religion and science movement, these responses should not be construed
as scholarly academic exercises. Two such responses deserve mention here.
Within certain segments of the various traditional religious communities,
both theology and forms of worship have undergone significant transformations
in response to scientific knowledge, thanks to the patient labors
of philosophers, theologians, clergy, and laity. These religious groups
are in process of reforming themselves. Extraordinary developments of
religious philosophy in the last two hundred years are, unfortunately, scarcely
recognized outside the peer group of academically trained theologians. As
a result of this philosophical and theological reformulation, resources are
now available to interpret traditional beliefs constructively in the light of
contemporary scientific knowledge. The concept of God, for example,
has been reworked so thoroughly, both philosophically and theologically,
that it no longer opposes mainstream scientific presentations of evolutionary
theory. Worship forms are also in a state of reform, exemplified in the
comprehensive revision of the United Church of Christ hymnal and the
Lutheran handbook for interpreting Sunday Bible readings in the light of
scientific perspectives. For many years, the Roman Catholic Conference
of Bishops has carried on dialogue with prominent scientists; most Protestant
churches incorporate the dialogue into their national programming,
and they coordinate their efforts in the Ecumenical Roundtable for Religion,
Science, and Technology.
A second alternative response, often identified as "religious naturalism,"
is composed of a cross-section of people, many of whom are scientists,
who are fashioning a religious worldview that is consistent with their personal
outlook and/or free of those encumbrances of traditional religion
which they consider conceptually anachronistic and morally dangerous.
Jerome Stone has characterized religious naturalism:
|
Positively it affirms that attention should be focused on this world to provide whatever
explanation and meaning are possible to this life. Now religious naturalism is
a variety of naturalism which involves a set of beliefs and attitudes that there are
religious aspects of this world which can be appreciated within a naturalistic framework.
There are occasions within our experience which elicit responses which are
analogous enough to the paradigm cases of religion that they can appropriately be
called religious. Negatively it asserts that there seems to be no ontologically distinct
and superior realm (such as God, soul, or heaven) to ground, explain, or give
meaning to this world. (unpublished paper, "Concept of God among Religious
Naturalists," December 2004)
|
This analysis reveals a double contradiction in our current situation:
our culture is deeply divided by the warfare between despisers of religion
and fundamentalists, but over against the warfare we find serious and diligent
people who consider the idea of warfare itself to be unuseful and
uninformed, based on too superficial an understanding of both religion
and science. From this double contradiction at the heart of our culture we
conclude that, even though it wears a new face and is more complex, the
challenge of our situation today is fundamentally the same that the founders
of Zygon discerned in the mid-twentieth century. Now, as then, the chasm
between knowledge and value, science and religion, stands as a threat to
the common good, since it obstructs the efforts of scientific and religious
communities to work together to fashion more wholesome ways of living.
At the conceptual level, it lessens our ability to shape meaningful and coherent
worldviews, while practically it stands in the way of our forming
consensus on pressing issues like stem cells, transplants, and genetic engineering.
Obviously this journal rejects all proposals for warfare. We stand with
those who attempt the constructive yoking of religion and science: the
religion and science movement, the traditional religious communities that
are in the midst of reforming their beliefs and practices, and the religious
naturalists. In numbers, these yoking groups cannot measure up to either
the hostile despisers among the intelligentsia or the fundamentalists among
the religions. They will never capture the headlines and the sound bites.
But we believe, with the founders of forty years ago, that a more wholesome
future is emerging in the patient and courageous work of those who
undertake reformation and attempt the zygon, the yoking. In the face of
our culture's contradictions, we stand for hope.
The fortieth anniversary is a fitting occasion for us to explore anew the
vision that has animated the journal. The centerpiece of our explorations
is the year-long Fortieth Anniversary Symposium on the very theme of the
first 1966 editorial: "Science, Religion, and Secularity in a Technological
Age." Each of the year's four issues will include contributions to this symposium.
John Caiazza (history, philosophy) lays down the basic problematic in
his discussion of techno-secularism. The symposiasts generally concur with
Caiazza that there are significant issues raised in his article, but each elaborates
those issues differently, often in sharp disagreement with him. Philip
Clayton (philosophy) points to five types of approaches to the dialogue of
science and religion, and discerns positive accomplishments by each. Hava Tirosh-Samuelson (history of Jewish thought) powerfully recasts the issues
and proposes her own interpretation of the changes which the dialogue of
science religion is "uniquely qualified to address." Arguing that significant
"influence flows between science and religion," John Polkinghorne (physics,
theology) outlines specific topics of engagement for consideration.
Harold Morowitz (biophysics) responds to the discussion by exploring
"roads less traveled in the debate between science and religion." Caiazza
may be correct in describing negative elements in our current situation,
but Ervin Laszlo (philosophy of science) closes this round of the symposium
by pointing to a "spiritual renaissance" that he sees developing in our
midst.
The second section of this issue comprises a symposium on the thought
of Michael Polanyi, a figure who has appeared several times in our pages
over the years. Polanyi (1891-1976) was a physical chemist and philosopher
whose work has intrigued religious thinkers for many decades. Richard
Gelwick (religious studies) and John Apczynski (theology) explore
Polanyi's reflections on purpose in contrast with the claims of the contemporary
Intelligent Design thinkers. Both conclude that Polanyi would not
accept the teleological claims of the ID movement. Walter Gulick (theology)
offers an interpretative critique of this symposium.
Eight major articles make up the third section of this issue. Wolfhart
Pannenberg (theology) provides a major reflection on time, space, and eternity.
He offers a fundamental proposal for conceptualizing time and space
so as to give expression to God's immanence and transcendence, as well as
to a viable understanding of eternity. Working memory is the focus of
neuropsychologist Robert Glassman; he explores the significance of working
memory's limits for the mind's activity of organizing its experience of
the world. Steven Reiss (psychology) brings his well-known theory of the
basic desires and core values that influence personality to bear on how
individuals react to the dialogue between religion and science. Amos Yong
(theology) and Jacqueline Cameron (medicine, theology) work with issues
arising from the cognitive sciences. Yong's proposal concerns how nonreductive
physicalist theories of human personhood are enriched by the
recent advances in the Christian-Buddhist dialogue, specifically the Christian
concept of spirit and the Buddhist concept of co-dependent origination.
Cameron asks how Christian theology may be enriched by current
neuroscientific research on pain. Religious studies scholar Rebecca Sachs
Norris proposes that we engage neurobiological studies of emotions with
the function of religious traditions to "educate the feelings toward certain
qualities." This engagement can lead to a non-reductive examination of
spiritual experience. Andrew Ward (public policy) draws upon both postmodern
philosophy and neuroscience to develop a concept of ethical naturalism.
Holmes Rolston, III (philosophy, theology) concludes this section
with a full discussion of Simon Conway Morris's book, Life's Solution: Inevitable
Humans in a Lonely Universe, in which paleontologist Morris goes
against the stream of evolutionary thinking as he seeks "to refute the notion
of the dominance of contingency." Rolston concludes, "The challenge
to understand how humans are both on a continuum with other
species and also utterly different remains a central puzzle in paleontology."
In the Endmatter, we reprint the initial editorial from the March 1966
issue of the journal. We will offer reprints from the past in each of the
2005 issues.
Welcome to the fortieth year of Zygon. We promise you an engagement
with contradictions, and we invite you to join our hopeful band.
—Philip Hefner
|
Coming in June
The Fortieth Anniversary Symposium on Science, Religion, and Secularity
in a Technological Society continues with contributions by Barbara
Strassberg (sociology). Gordon Kaufman (theology, philosophy),
Norbert Samuelson (Jewish philosophy), Lluis Oviedo (theology),
and John Haught (theology).
|
Call for Papers
Zygon welcomes papers on the theme "What are the criteria for judging
that a worldview is 'scientific'?" What are the essential components
of a "scientific worldview"? What would disqualify a position
from being considered "scientific"?
Length is negotiable. Deadline is September 15, 2005. Authors planning
to submit such a paper should inform the editor as soon as possible.
Send notifications to both of these addresses:
pnhefner@sbcglobal.net
and
zygon@lstc.edu
|
Editorials Index
|
