DOCSLIB.ORG

A Critical Examination of Critical Realism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Critical Examination of Critical Realism This thesis has been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree (e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh. Please note the following terms and conditions of use: This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, which are retained by the thesis author, unless otherwise stated. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. BEYOND THE DICHOTOMY A Critical Examination of Critical Realism Sander Klaasse Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Divinity The University of Edinburgh 2018 DECLARATION I declare that this thesis was composed solely by myself and that it has not been submitted, in whole or in part, in any previous application for a degree. Except where stated otherwise by reference or acknowledgment, the work presented is entirely my own. ABSTRACT Methodological issues lie at the heart of the current science-theology exchange and it has been in particular the concept of critical realism that has been widely adopted as providing the rationale for an enriching dialogue between science and theology. Introduced by Ian G. Barbour and further developed by, among others, Arthur Peacocke and John Polkinghorne, critical realism has become the default position for many within the field of science and religion and it has made possible the developments of the past six decades in this field. Despite its prominent position, an in-depth and critical examination of critical realism from philosophical perspectives is currently lacking in the science and theology literature. Aware of this need, the aim of this project is twofold. First, this research intends to define and clarify what is actually meant with critical realism. In doing so, I introduce the notion of ‘family resemblance’ as a helpful metaphor for understanding the many nuances of various critical realisms in science-theology scholarship. Furthermore, a taxonomy of the various philosophical and methodological commitments is offered, which forms the backbone of subsequent chapters (Chapter 2 on metaphysics, Chapter 3 on epistemology, Chapter 4 on semantics, and Chapters 5, 6, and 7 on methodology). Second, this study aims to reveal certain weaknesses in the rationale underpinning and informing the critical realist stance. Hefner’s critical diagnosis of critical realism runs as a leitmotif through this doctoral thesis: This now widely used term, ‘critical realism’, is beginning to appear in the writings of several authors in a somewhat doctrinaire sense, as if it were an established theory of explanation, when in fact it is a suggestive hypothesis that is struggling for credibility in the marketplace of ideas (Hefner, 1985: 32). In addition to various chapter-specific challenges, we will turn to Hefner’s diagnosis in particular in Chapter 8. Here I introduce Pelikan’s distinction between ‘apologetics’ and ‘presupposition’ as a helpful way to understand the aims of critical realism and to show that critical realism is indeed a suggestive hypothesis. Furthermore, with the chapter-specific weaknesses and two more general criticisms, I hope to argue that critical realism should be understood as mostly a suggestive hypothesis that has become critical for those who take a positive stance towards the epistemological capabilities of theology and a critical stance for those considering science as the only valid way of acquiring knowledge. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS More people than I can name here have contributed to the shaping of this PhD. First and foremost, I owe a significant debt to my doctoral supervisors, Mark Harris and Michela Massimi, for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of the PhD thesis, our enriching discussions on science and religion, philosophy of science and many more, and for fostering an academic culture to study critical realism. Many hours of discussing and exploring numerous debates in philosophy, science and religion, and theology have been a tremendous privilege. Furthermore, I wish to thank The University of Edinburgh’s School of Divinity, and in particular David Fergusson, Michael Fuller, and Jamie Collins for our constructive dialogues. Furthermore, I received valuable inspiration from the conversations with Paul Allen, Andreas Losch, and Gijsbert van den Brink on critical realism. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to Andrew Moore and Michael Fuller for engaging with the doctoral thesis on such a comprehensive level and for providing very helpful comments to improve the overall argument and various chapter-specific issues. I am also grateful to the members of the John J. Reilly Center of the University of Notre Dame. It was such a wonderful experience being part of this community of academics, and I would like to thank in particular Anjan Chakravartty for his helpful comments on the present study in general and the chapter ‘The Mind-Independence of What?’ in particular. Furthermore, the face-to-face meetings with Celia Deane- Drummond, Christian Smith, Katherine Brading, and Michael Rea have helped me a lot in articulating my ideas on critical realism. I also wish to thank those who have offered financial support for this PhD research. I gratefully acknowledge the support of The University of Edinburgh’s College of Humanities and Social Sciences Studentship, the Prins Bernhard Cultuurfonds, and the Dr. Hendruk Muller Vaderlandschfonds. Last but not least, I would also like to express gratitude to my family and friends for always supporting and encouraging me in my adventures. They have – somehow – always been kind to the philosopher in their midst. In a most profound way, I would like to thank my wonderful family, my wife Marieke and our daughters Lenthe and Vera, for all their patience, sacrifices, love and support. Our adventures in Edinburgh, USA, and Canada have been such a blast and I look forward to many more adventures to come. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 1 The Evolution of Critical Realism 19 1.1 The Historical Origins of Critical Realism in Science-Theology Scholarship 19 1.1.1 Critical About the Attempts to Unravel the Historical Origins of Critical Realism 23 1.2 Critical Realism and Family Resemblance: Similarities and Differences 25 1.2.1 Barbour on Critical Realism 26 1.2.2 Peacocke and Polkinghorne Join the Family 28 1.2.3 Why should we consider Barbour, Peacocke, and Polkinghorne as Resembling a Family? 32 1.2.4 Recent Developments in the Literature on Critical Realism 36 1.2.5 The Outer Circle of the Family 39 1.3 A Preliminary Formulation of Critical Realism 45 2 The Mind-Independence of What? 49 2.1 Metaphysical Realism and the Problem of Knowing the External World 50 2.2 Reality as Mental Construct: Ontological Idealism 54 2.2.1 Rejecting Ontological Idealism: A Critical Realist Response 55 2.3 Mental Appearance of a Mind-Independent Reality: Epistemological Idealism 58 2.3.1 Mind-Independence and the Kantian Tradition 58 2.3.2 A Recent Interpretation of Kant’s Solution: Conceptual Relativism 63 2.4 Critical Realism and its Metaphysical Commitments 66 2.4.1 Unpacking Metaphysical Package 1: Scheme-Dependent Knowledge Claims 68 2.4.2 Unpacking Metaphysical Package 2: Scheme-Independent Reality 70 2.5 Critical Realist Metaphysics: A Definition 74 3 Critical Realism and Epistemology 77 3.1 Critical Realism and its Epistemological Considerations 77 3.2 Infallibilism, Scepticism, and Fallibilism 79 3.2.1 Infallibilism and its Epistemological Commitments 81 3.2.2 Opposing Infallibilism: Scepticism 82 3.2.3 Fallibilism as the Via Media between Infallibilism and Scepticism 83 3.3 Critical Realism and the Fallibilist Stance 85 3.4 Criterion of Withstanding Serious Criticism 87 3.5 Theological Fallibilism and the Problem of Necessary Truths 90 3.5.1 Durrant’s Argument against Theological Fallibilism 92 3.5.2 First Argument: Agent Fallibilism and Proposition (In)fallibilism 95 3.5.3 Second Argument: Argument of Plurality 98 3.6 Concluding Remarks: Epistemological Humility 102 4 Models, Symbols, and Analogies 105 4.1 Critical Realism and Semantics 106 4.2 Critical Realism and its Foes: Literalism and Instrumentalism 108 4.3 Critical Realism and its Semantic Via Media 112 4.3.1 Analogies: Making the Unfamiliar Familiar 114 4.3.2 Models: Devoid of Ontology? 116 4.3.3 Metaphors: Conflating with Models? 118 4.3.4 Theories: Collections of Models? 122 4.3.5 Understanding the Differences amongst Critical Realists 124 4.4 Referring but not Defining 126 4.4.1 Durrant’s Critical Response to Soskice’s ‘Referring but not defining’-principle 129 4.5 Concluding Remarks 131 5 The Humanisation of Science: The Scientist as Experiencing Being 135 5.1 Critical Realism and Philosophy of Science 136 5.1.1 A Brief Sketch of Scientific Practice according to Critical Realism 137 5.2 Logical Empiricism and its Remnants of a Dehumanised Science in the Work of Science Popularisers 139 5.2.1 Remnants of Logical Empiricism in Popular Literature 142 5.3 Critical Realism and the ‘New Philosophy of Science’ 145 5.3.1 Norwood Hanson and his Influence on Critical Realists 146 5.3.2 Michael Polanyi’s Reinstatement
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Numenews Winter 2014
    WINTER 2014 Vol. 11, No. 2 Remembering Ian Barbour: Mentor, Colleague, Friend and Founder of Carleton’s Religion Department as Mother Teresa and the Dalai Lama. He donated most of the money to support the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California. His broadly celebrated book, When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers, or Partners? (2000) synthesized and communicated much of his life work to a broader audience beyond the academy. His four models for understanding the ways science and religion have been brought in relation—conflict, independence, dialogue, integration—became staples for educators and individuals trying to engage productively in questions about evolution and faith, the impact of technology on today’s world, and the ethical resources (gleaned from both science and religion) for addressing global problems related to the environment, genetic engineering, nuclear conflict, and social justice. Though he was held in high regard among so many leading intellectuals and in many scholarly and religious associations across the In December, the religion department lost its cherished country and abroad, Ian was known for his gentle, humble demeanor, colleague, mentor, friend, and founder, Ian Barbour, Winifred and for his devotion to his local communities in Northfield, where he and Atherton Bean Professor Emeritus of Science, Technology, remained active in the First United Church of Christ, and also taught and Society, who touched the lives of so many people at and well regularly in the Cannon Valley Elder Collegium at the Northfield Senior beyond Carleton. He died on Christmas Eve at the age of 90.
    [Show full text]
  • Panentheism and Panexperientialism for Open and Relational Theology
    Panentheism and Panexperientialism for Open and Relational Theology Thomas Jay Oord and Wm. Andrew Schwartz Open and relational theologies have a particular affinity for panentheism and panexperientialism (panpsychism). These theologies come in various forms, however. And scholars propose various forms of panentheism and panexperi- entialism. Diversity reigns. We begin this essay by describing open and relational theology. We also describe panentheism and panexperientialism, broadly understood. We note reasons why open and relational theists would be attracted to each. And we argue that panentheism and panexperientialism complement one another, al- though a person could be attracted only to one. Much of the essay argues for one form of open and relational theology we think makes the best sense overall. This form includes belief in a personal/ relational God, makes distinctions between God and creatures, affirms God ev- erlastingly creates (thereby denying creatio ex nihilo), and offers a solution to the theoretical aspect of the problem of evil. Adopting panexperientialism and panentheism offers ways to overcome theoretical problems in contemporary thought, while arguably motivating adherents of the view to love (promote overall well-being). 1. Open and Relational Theology The label »open and relational theology« serves as an umbrella designation for a family of theologies.1 This family shares at least two core convictions. The »open« aspect refers to the idea that both creatures and God experience the ongoingness of time. Consequently, both God and creatures face an open, yet to be determined future. Because the future is not actual, it is inherently 1 These include theologies using labels such as open theism, process theism, various relational theologies, some Wesleyan theologies, some feminist theologies, some ecological theologies, some Arminian theologies, some postcolonial theologies, and more.
    [Show full text]
  • Plantinga Argues That There Is Superficial Conflict but Deep Concord Between Science and Theistic Religion
    This is an accepted manuscript of an article published in Philosophia Reformata, 79 (I) (2014), 66-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/22116117-90000563 Where the conflict really lies: Plantinga, the challenge of evil, and religious naturalism Elizabeth D. Burns, Heythrop College, University of London In this paper I argue that, although Alvin Plantinga’s Felix Culpa theodicy appears on only two pages of his recent book Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion and Naturalism (2011) (i.e. 58-59), it is of pivotal importance for the book as a whole. Plantinga argues that there is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and monotheism, and that there is superficial concord but deep conflict between science and naturalism. I contend that the weakness of the Felix Culpa theodicy lends support to the view that there is more than superficial conflict between science and monotheism, and offer an alternative response to the challenge of evil which suggests that there might be, after all, concord between science and (religious) naturalism. 1. Plantinga and the challenge of evil In order to show that, although there is superficial conflict, there is deep concord between science and monotheism, central to which is ‘the thought that there is such a person as God: a personal agent who has created the world and is all-powerful, all- knowing, and perfectly good’ (ix), Plantinga argues that God creates by means of the process of natural selection (39), that Michael Behe’s writings about irreducible complexity constitute a series of ‘design discourses’ for which there aren’t any defeaters (258), and that God’s miraculous interventions are not incompatible with an interpretation of natural laws as ‘descriptions of the material universe when God is not treating what he has made in a special way’ (119).
    [Show full text]
  • Appreciating Faith and Culture in an Age of Scientific Reasoning. On
    Appreciating Faith And Culture In An Age Of Scientific Reasoning. On Constructive-Critical Realism „Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth.“ 1 1. The Common Search For Truth Theology does not always regard the development of science as relevant for its argumentation. Yet outside the walls of church communities, scientific –especially evolutionary – thinking dominates the everyday philosophies of many people. Also for the scientists themselves, science is often thought to be more than just a technical approach to establish empirical observations that work. Although interpretations may vary, what generally is at stake since the case of Galilei is the question of truth, of revealing the way the world we live in really is. Should not at least a theology of creation regard what science finds out about this world? On the one hand it may make sense, to think theology through based on what it can learn from science. The so-called “science and religion” discourse attempts at that. One the other hand, one must show why faith and culture are still relevant in a world dominated by scientific reasoning. I am convinced, this second aspect is not sufficiently covered by how the science and religion discourse is mostly performed in theology until today. Faith does play a crucial role, but culture not so much. For instance, former professor of particle physics (and later Anglican priest) John Polkinghorne speaks of both science and theology as truth-seeking communities. From a philosophical point of view, this presents a metaphysical interpretation of science as a verisimilitudinous endeavor, approaching the one world`s reality with our scientific efforts.
    [Show full text]
  • Religion and Science1
    Phil 3303 Phil of Religion Religion and Science1 Four Models for Understanding the Relationship Between Religion and Science I. Conflict A. Areas of conflict 1. Creation and evolution 2. Freudian psychoanalytic theory calls into question the legitimacy of the religious way of life by suggesting that its roots are in wish fulfillment and repression (Totem and Taboo; The Future of an Illusion; Moses and Monotheism 3. Einsteinian relativity theory which drastically reinterprets our conceptions of space, time and causality and thus challenges us how God relates to the world (see Einstein's Relativity: The Special and General Theory). 4. Technological advances in computers and artificial intelligence seem to endanger the unique status of homo sapiens (originally, see A. M. Turing, "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," Mind 59 (1960); D. Hofstadter and D. Dennet, The Mind's I). 5. Biotechnology and the discovery of the DNA molecule threaten to put the secret of life into the hands of scientists. B. Scientific materialism or philosophical naturalism Many evolutionary scientists adopted the perspective of PN (Philosophical naturalism) as the control belief and basis of evolution. (1) that physical nature alone is real; (2) all phenomenon are configurations of matter or nature; (3) there is no supreme being or supernatural realm governing nature or overseeing humanity; 1 Taken from Michael Peterson, et. al. Reason and Religious Belief, 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford UP, 2003), pp. 246ff. (4) natural processes are responsible for the origination of life and diverse life forms. This control belief led to the full-fledge world view of evolutionary naturalism which holds the following: (1) that humanity stands alone in an essentially hostile universe; (2) that humanity has no overarching purpose; (3) reject religion as an illusion, and view science as the only hope for the progress of humanity and as the only way to explain human experience, existence, and destiny.
    [Show full text]
  • Hesitations About Special Divine Action: Reflections on Some Scientific, Cultural and Theological Concerns
    HESITATIONS ABOUT SPECIAL DIVINE ACTION: REFLECTIONS ON SOME SCIENTIFIC, CULTURAL AND THEOLOGICAL CONCERNS ALISTER E. MCGRATH Oxford University Abstract. The new interest in special divine action has led to a close reading of the great debates and discussions of the early modern period in an attempt to understand contemporary resistance to the notion of divine action, and to develop strategies for reaffirming the notion in a refined manner. Although continuing engagement with and evaluation of the Humean legacy on miracles and divine action will be of central importance to this programme of review, there are other issues that also need to be addressed. In this article I identify some of the factors that have caused or continue to cause difficulties for the articulation of a concept of special divine action and I suggest how they might be engaged. The last two decades have witnessed a renewed surge of interest in the question of whether, and to what extent, God may be said to act in the world. Can God be understood to act entirely in and through the regular structures and capacities of nature, or does a robust account of divine action also require us to affirm that God acts specially in order to redirect the course of events in the natural world, thus delivering outcomes that would not have occurred if God had not acted in this way? Although this discussion is sometimes framed in terms of a generic notion of divinity,1 the most significant recent engagements with the question have reflected Judeo-Christian conceptions of God, and the questions arising from these.
    [Show full text]
  • Pansacramentalism, Interreligious Theology, and Lived Religion
    religions Article Pansacramentalism, Interreligious Theology, and Lived Religion Hans Gustafson College of Arts and Sciences, University of St. Thomas, 2115 Summit Avenue, Mail 57P, St. Paul, MN 55105, USA; [email protected] Received: 21 May 2019; Accepted: 26 June 2019; Published: 28 June 2019 Abstract: Opening with a philosophical definition of sacrament(ality) as a mediator (mediation) of the sacred in the concrete world, this article offers pansacramentalism as a promising worldview—especially for those rooted in or emerging from the Christian traditions (since, for them, the language of sacramentality may have a stronger resonance)—for bringing together interreligious theology and data mined by Lived Religion approaches to the study of religion. After articulating the concept of pansacramentalism and emphasizing interreligious theology as an emerging model for doing theology, growing trends and changing sensibilities among young people’s religious and spiritual lives (e.g., the “Nones”) is considered insofar as such trends remain relevant for making contemporary theology accessible to the next generation. The article then considers the intersection of pansacramentalism and interreligious theology, especially the issue of determining sacramental authenticity. To explain how this challenge might be met, Abraham Heschel’s theology of theomorphism is offered as but one example as a nuanced means for determining sacramental authenticity of the sacred in the world. Turning to “Lived Religion” approaches, rationale is offered for why pansacramentalism and interreligious theology ought to be taken seriously in the contemporary world, especially considering recent data about the nature of contemporary religious identities among young people living in the West. Keywords: pansacramentalism; sacramentality; interreligious; lived religion; interreligious studies 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Religion in an Age of Science by Ian Barbour
    Religion in an Age of Science return to religion-online 47 Religion in an Age of Science by Ian Barbour Ian G. Barbour is Professor of Science, Technology, and Society at Carleton College, Northefiled, Minnesota. He is the author of Myths, Models and Paradigms (a National Book Award), Issues in Science and Religion, and Science and Secularity, all published by HarperSanFrancisco. Published by Harper San Francisco, 1990. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted and Winnie Brock. (ENTIRE BOOK) An excellent and readable summary of the role of religion in an age of science. Barbour's Gifford Lectures -- the expression of a lifetime of scholarship and deep personal conviction and insight -- including a clear and helpful analysis of process theology. Preface What is the place of religion in an age of science? How can one believe in God today? What view of God is consistent with the scientific understanding of the world? My goals are to explore the place of religion in an age of science and to present an interpretation of Christianity that is responsive to both the historical tradition and contemporary science. Part 1: Religion and the Methods of Science Chapter 1: Ways of Relating Science and Religion A broad description of contemporary views of the relationship between the methods of science and those of religion: Conflict, Independence, Dialogue, and Integration. Chapter 2: Models and Paradigms This chapter examines some parallels between the methods of science and those of religion: the interaction of data and theory (or experience and interpretation); the historical character of the interpretive community; the use of models; and the influence of paradigms or programs.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploration Towards God in a Scientific Age
    ST GEORGE’S LECTURES 8 - Exploration Towards God in a Scientific Age No 8 - © Arthur Peacocke 2002 Exploration Towards God in a Scientific Age 1 Arthur Peacocke MBE, DD, DSc, SOSc Honorary Canon and Chaplain, Christ Church Cathedral, Oxford Little Gidding is a small village in Huntingdonshire, England, to which Nicholas Ferrar, a doctor well-connected politically, retired with his family in 1626 to lead an ordered life of prayer and good works (medical, book binding, etc.) in a lay community – the first one in England (lay or ordained) since the English Reformation. It lasted for 21 years before being broken up by Puritan Protestants. In May 1936, T.S. Eliot visited its 17th-century chapel, which still exists, and later he composed the last of his influential Four Quartets . The poem, entitled Little Gidding , is a profound reflection on the significance of time in the divine purpose and four lines provide the leit-motif of this lecture: We shall not cease from exploration And the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And know the place for the first time. (T.S. Eliot, Little Gidding ) Nicholas Ferrar had been a Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge, where I was for 11 years Dean (of Chapel). One of my great experiences at that college was, once a year, to go with students to Little Gidding. There we conferred in the adjacent farm house and then celebrated the Eucharist, Holy Communion, the Mass, in its unforgettable, evocative and dignified small 17th-century chapel with the light of the setting sun streaming through its west door.
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis.Pdf (274.2Kb)
    Speaking of God in an Age of Science Torbjørn W. Engel REL-3901: Masteroppgave studieretning i teologi Institutt for religionsvitenskap Det samfunnsvitenskapelige fakultet Universitetet i Tromsø Mai 2008 2 Contents CONTENTS............................................................................................................................. 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... 5 PREFACE ................................................................................................................................ 7 CHAPTER I: P EACOCKE AS A FUNCTIONALIST ........................................................................ 9 Life and work of Arthur R. Peacocke................................................................................ 9 Opening remarks............................................................................................................. 10 Bridging religion and science......................................................................................... 14 Summary of introduction................................................................................................. 25 CHAPTER II: A D ISCUSSION OF PEACOCKE ’S FUNCTIONALIST PERSPECTIVE ....................... 27 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 27 Discussion......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy of Religion and Science
    PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION AND SCIENCE Course Number: HHP 261, 361, 362 Institution: University of Tasmania, Australia Instructor: Dr. Julia Watkin UNIT CONTENT This unit introduces students to important philosophical issues in the history of the encounter between religion and science through study of the major sources of conflict. Important themes to be explored include the arguments surrounding opposed models of the universe and the methods and theories underlying scientific and religious debate. OBJECTIVES To give students an understanding of the philosophical issues involved in the encounter between religion and science and to develop students' understanding and reflection concerning the debate surrounding the issues. ASSESSMENT Two 2,000 word assignments [2,500 for 3rd years]. Each assignment is worth 20%. Late submission without proper justification or excuse will be penalized. Tutorials throughout the year are worth 10% of the course. The exam is worth 50% and covers the entire course. Assignments, TUTS, and exam are compulsory. ASSIGNMENT TOPICS FOR THE FIRST SEMESTER: The assignment is due on 30th April, 1996. Choose one of the following: 1. Critically discuss the assertion that science is more objectively true than religion. 2. Critically discuss the claim that there is a genuine conflict between religion and science. 3. Critically discuss either: G.W. Leibniz' view of the universe as given in his essay "On the Ultimate Origination of Things" or Peter Atkins' view of the origin of space, time and the universe in Creation Revisited. PRESCRIBED TEXTS: Reading: Prescribed reading for whole year: Anthony O'Hear: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1989.
    [Show full text]
  • The Genetic Recombination of Science and Religion”; John A
    Zygon and the Future of Religion- and-Science with Philip Hefner, “Discerning the Voice of Zygon”; Karl E. Peters, “Why Zygon? The Journal’s Original Visions”; Solomon H. Katz, “Transcending Irony”; Lea F. Schweitz, “On the Road with Religion-and-Science”; Hava Tirosh-Samuelson, “History and the Fu- ture of Science and Religion”; Stephen M. Modell, “The Genetic Recombination of Science and Religion”; John A. Teske, “A Literary Trinity”; Carol Rausch Albright, “James B. Ash- brook and His Holistic World”; James W. Haag, “Blazing a New Trail”; Joan D. Koss- Chioino, “Concerning Diversity and Practicality”; Ann Pederson, “New Directions, New Collaborations”; Gregory R. Peterson, “Stage-Two Secularity”; Willem B. Drees, “Reflect- ing upon Religion” THE GENETIC RECOMBINATION OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION by Stephen M. Modell Abstract. The estrangement between genetic scientists and theo- logians originating in the 1960s is reflected in novel combinations of human thought (subject) and genes (investigational object), parallel- ing each other through the universal process known in chaos theory as self-similarity. The clash and recombination of genes and knowl- edge captures what Philip Hefner refers to as irony, one of four voices he suggests transmit the knowledge and arguments of the religion- and-science debate. When viewed along a tangent connecting irony to leadership, journal dissemination, and the activities of the “public intellectual” and the public at large, the sequence of voices is shown to resemble the passage of genetic information from DNA to mRNA, tRNA, and protein, and from cell nucleus to surrounding environ- ment. In this light, Hefner’s inquiry into the voices of Zygon is bound up with the very subject matter Zygon covers.
    [Show full text]