The “warfare of science and religion”

Three more passages from a book by Alister McGrath —  an Anglican priest who holds three Oxford doctorates: a D.Phil. in molecular biophysics, a D.D. in theology, and a D.Litt. in intellectual history, and who currently occupies the Andreas Idreos Professorship of Science and Religion at the University of Oxford:

[T]his “science versus religion” narrative is stale, outdated and largely discredited.  It is sustained not by the weight of evidence but merely by its endless uncritical repetition, which studiously avoids the scholarship of the last generation that has undermined its credibility. . . .  The “warfare of science and religion” narrative has had its day.  (16, 20)

[T]he New Atheism prefers to ridicule religious people rather than engage seriously with religious ideas.  Its rhetoric of dismissal allows it to present its ignorance of religious ideas as an intellectual virtue, when it is simply an arrogant excuse to avoid thinking.  (20-21)

It is certainly true that science, if it is to be science and not something else, is committed to a method that is often styled “methodological naturalism.”  That is the way that science works.  That is what is characteristic of science, and it both provides science with its rigor and sets its limits.  Science has established a set of tested and reliable rules by it investigates reality, and “methodological materialism” is one of them.

But science is about setting rules for exploring reality, not limiting reality to what can be explored in this way.  It does not for one moment mean that science is committed to some kind of philosophical materialism.  Some materialists argue that the explanatory successes of science imply an underlying ontological materialism.  Yet this is simply one of several ways of interpreting this approach, and there are others with widespread support within the scientific community.  Eugenie Scott, then director of the National Center for Science Education, made this point neatly back in 1993:  “Science neither denies nor opposes the supernatural, but ignores the supernatural for methodological reasons.”  Science is a non-theistic, not an anti-theistic, way of engaging reality.  As the philosopher Alvin Plantinga so rightly observes, if there is any conflict between “science” and “faith,” it is really between a dogmatic metaphysical naturalism and belief in God. (19)

Alister McGrath, The Big Question: Why We Can’t Stop Talking about Science, Faith and God (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2015).

***

This newly republished article is — unfortunately — perhaps even more relevant now than it was when it originally appeared in 2007. It isn’t merely political, but has a systematic theoretical basis, which is why I’m including it in this post on science-related topics:

“The Coming Urban Terror”

If it doesn’t worry you at least a little bit, you’re not paying attention.

***

I’ve grown very weary of people who can’t seem to disagree without emotionalism, declarations of total war, and the demonization of those whose views differ from theirs.

If you don’t concur that this is shameful, sue me:

“Climate Scientist Mark Jacobson Sues Journal For $10M Over Hurt Feelings”