Vollmer, Religion-Science Relationality
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Groningen The relationality of religion and science Vollmer, Laura Jean IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: 2017 Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database Citation for published version (APA): Vollmer, L. J. (2017). The relationality of religion and science: Toward a new discourse-analytical framework. University of Groningen. Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license. More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne- amendment. Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum. Download date: 01-10-2021 The Relationality of Religion and Science Toward a New Discourse-analytical Framework PhD Thesis to obtain the degree of PhD at the University of Groningen on the authority of the Rector Magnificus Prof. E. Sterken and in accordance with the decision by the College of Deans. This thesis will be defended in public on Thursday 8 June 2017 at 14.30 hours by Laura Jean Vollmer born on 8 October 1983 in Missouri, USA Supervisor Prof. C.K.M. von Stuckrad Co-supervisor Prof. C. Jedan Assessment Committee Prof. W. Bauman Prof. W.B. Drees Prof. A.L. Molendijk I dedicate this to my daughter, Kaya Lin. Whenever we were apart, it was so I could work. So, work I did—to make our separation mean something. I could never have done so much in so little time without your smile waiting on the other side. I raced to that end. Acknowledgements My deep gratitude goes to Kocku von Stuckrad and Christoph Jedan, my advisors, mentors, and friends. Though my work is in debt to them in innumerable ways, I sometimes blatantly ignored their suggestions, as I am sure they are painfully aware. As such, I cannot attribute a single fault but can grant all the fluencies herein to them. I also want to thank Frank K. Flinn. Though lost to us, his friendship and support continues to be felt and will never be forgotten. Finally, I want to acknowledge my father, Larry, and especially my mother, Sherry, who took care of my precious daughter when I was away on business. I could work with ease of mind knowing that she was well looked after and much loved. [What] false appearances that are imposed upon us by words, which are framed and applied according to the conceit and capacities of the vulgar sort: and although we think we govern our words, and prescribe it well, loquendum ut vulgus, sentiendum ut sapientes; yet certain it is that words, as a Tartar’s bow, do shoot back upon the understanding of the wisest, and mightily entangle and pervert the judgment. So as it is almost necessary in all controversies and disputations to imitate the wisdom of the mathematicians, in setting down in the very beginning the definitions of our words and terms that others may know how we accept and understand them, and whether they concur with us or no. For it cometh to pass for want of this that we are sure to end there where we ought to have begun, which is, in questions and differences about words. To conclude therefore, it must be confessed that it is not possible to divorce ourselves from these fallacies and false appearances, because they are inseparable from our nature and condition of life. —Francis Bacon (1561–1626)1 1 Bacon (2001), 126. Contents Preface viii Chapter 1: Forgetting Words 1 1 Meaning Is Fluid: The Problem, the Motivation, & the Aim 1 2 Past Approaches 4 3 Alternative Approaches 8 3.1 Discourse Analysis 8 3.2 The Sociology of Knowledge 11 4 Position of the Project in the Discipline, Research Questions, & Outline 16 5 Final Remarks 19 Chapter 2: Forgetting Beings—Relational Theory & Method 20 1 The Theory of Relationalism 20 1.1 Relational Metaphysics, Cognizance, & Semantics 24 2 Methodology: Relationality Analysis 32 2.1 Terminology 35 2.2 Mutual Exclusivity 38 2.3 Identity 40 2.3.1 The Scientification of Religion 41 2.3.2 The Religionization of Science 44 2.4 Inclusivity 46 2.5 Representation 47 2.5.1 The Scientificity of Religion 49 2.5.2 The Religiosity of Science 50 3 The Structure of Discursive Change & the Relational Model 52 4 The Relational Model & the Problem of Definition 55 Chapter 3: Religion-Science Mutual Exclusivity 59 1 Science as ‘Not Religion’ 59 2 Religion & Science Entangled 63 3 Scientific Knowledge as ‘Not Religious Knowledge’ 64 4 The Pre-history of Science as ‘Not the History of Religion’ 67 4.1 Science as ‘Not Natural Philosophy/Religion’ 68 4.2 Science/Natural Philosophy as ‘Not Religion’ 70 5 The History of Science as ‘Not Religion’ 74 6 The Scientific Enterprise as ‘Not Religious’ 77 7 The Scientific Profession as ‘Not Religious’ 80 7.1 Scientific Fields of Study as ‘Not Religious’ 81 7.2 Scientist as ‘Not a Person of Religion’ 83 7.3 The Scientific Institution as ‘Not Religious’ 84 8 Conflict as the MaterialiZation of Mutual Exclusivity 89 9 Exclusive Science: Signifiers of Science as ‘Not Religion’ 94 9.1 Rationality as ‘Not Religion’ 96 9.2 Naturalism, Materialism, and Physicalism as ‘Not Religion’ 98 9.3 Other Signifiers of Science as ‘Not Religion’ 104 10 Reflections on Mutual Exclusivity 104 Chapter 4: The Scientification of Religion & the Case of the Science of Religion 109 1 Religion as a ‘Scientific Object’ 109 2 Knowledge of Religion as ‘Natural’ 113 3 History of Religion as ‘Natural’ 117 4 The Objective & Subjective Enterprises of Religion as ‘Natural’ 119 5 Religion ‘LocaliZed’ in the Brain 124 6 Religion Negated: Signifiers of Scientification 130 6.1 Science of Religion as ‘Reductive’ 131 6.2 Scientificated Religion 136 6.2.1 Religion as Pathology 138 6.2.2 Religion as Insignificant 143 6.2.3 Religion as False 144 7 From Mutual Exclusivity to Scientification 149 Chapter 5: The Religionization of Science & the Case of the Religion of Scientism 152 1 Scientism as ‘Religion’ 152 2 Scientification as the ‘Religion of Scientism’ 156 3 History of Science as the Social Evolution of Religion 174 4 The Scientistic Enterprise as ‘Religious’ 179 5 Scientistic Knowledge as ‘Religious’ 185 6 The Scientistic Profession as ‘Religious’ 195 7 From Mutual Exclusivity to ReligioniZation 199 Chapter 6: Religion-Science Inclusivity & the Case of the Religion of Science Reformation 204 1 Inclusivity as ‘Not Mutual Exclusivity’ 204 2 Exclusivity Negated 209 3 The Religion of Science Reformation 213 4 The Religion of Science as ‘Not Reductive’ 219 5 The Religion of Science as ‘Not the False Tradition of Religion-Science Exclusivity’ 229 6 Religion-Science Dichotomies as ‘Complementarities’ 237 7 From Mutual Exclusivity & Identity to Inclusivity & Back Again 243 Chapter 7: The Scientificity of Religion & the Case of Buddhism 251 1 Religion as ‘Scientific’ 251 2 History of ‘Science’ in Buddhism 258 2.1 Buddhism as ‘Not Christianity’ 259 2.2 Buddhism Differentiated from ‘Religion’ 264 2.3 Buddhism Likened to ‘Science’ 269 2.3.1 Early Developments 269 2.3.2 Theosophy, Buddhism, & Esoteric Science 271 2.3.3 The Carus Circle, Buddhism, & Mainstream Science 274 2.3.4 Buddhism & Science in Dialogue 277 3 Buddhist Knowledge as ‘Scientific’ 283 4 The Buddhist Enterprise as ‘Scientific’ 291 5 From Inclusivity to Scientificity to Mutual Exclusivity 298 Chapter 8: The Religiosity of Science & the Case of Quantum Mysticism 306 1 Science as ‘Religious’ 306 2 History of ‘Religion’ in Quantum Physics 312 2.1 Nonlocality as ‘Religious’ 314 2.2 Indeterminism as ‘Religious’ 317 2.3 Superposition as ‘Religious’ 320 2.4 Consciousness as ‘Religious’ 323 3 Scientific Knowledge as ‘Religious’ 337 4 Scientific Enterprise as ‘Religious’ 345 5 From Inclusivity to Religiosity to Mutual Exclusivity 353 Chapter 9: Reflections on Relationalism 360 1 Relations as a Conceptual Map 360 2 Relationality Analysis in Perspective 362 2.1 Postmodernism and Relationalism 363 2.2 Post-postmodernism and Relationalism 373 3 Future Directions for Research 381 4 Final Remarks 386 References 389 Preface My arm already raised against the venerated idols, I suddenly stop to dispute with myself over the illusions of pride and over the line which separates courage and temerity, and so after a long enough time I find myself more tired than Moses, without having struck Amalec. —Joseph de Maistre (1753–1821)1 I was moved by these words of the philosopher Joseph de Maistre because of how much they reflected my own feelings in conducting this research, battling the great goliaths of religion and science and particularly warring with how concepts are typically conceptualized. I wonder if I have gone too far or not gone far enough in combating these idols. Many academics of religion, natural scientists, philosophers, and popular writers have attempted to give a final word of what the religion-science relationship entails, even if that answer is just to point to the complexity involved.